Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04094/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04094-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MI PUEBLO SAN JOSE, INC, et al

Plaintiffs,

v

CITY OF OAKLAND,

Defendant. /

No C-06-4094 VRW

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER

On June 30, 2006, plaintiffs Mi Pueblo San Jose, Inc, and

Cha Cha Enterprises, LLC, filed a complaint alleging, inter alia,

that the City of Oakland illegally revoked their building permits. 

Doc #1, ¶¶ 35-44. On July 7, 2006, plaintiffs filed an ex parte

motion for issuance of a temporary restraining order and order to

show cause regarding a preliminary injunction. Doc #3. The City

of Oakland filed a response to plaintiffs’ motion on July 14, 2006. 

Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of its ex parte motion on July

17, 2006. Doc #17.

To obtain a temporary restraining order, the moving party

must show either (1) a combination of probable success on the

merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or (2) that

Case 3:06-cv-04094-VRW Document 23 Filed 08/17/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips

sharply in favor of the moving party. Stuhlbarg International

Sales Co, Inc v John D Brush & Co, Inc, 240 F3d 832, 839-40 (9th

Cir 2001). Under either formulation, the movant must demonstrate

they “have a fair chance of success on the merits.” Johnson v

California State Bd of Accountancy, 72 F3d 1427, 1429 (9th Cir

1995). 

Moreover, this balance must weigh “heavily and

compellingly in movant’s favor” when the injunctive relief would

disturb the status quo, which is defined as the last uncontested

status that preceded the pending controversy. GoTo.com, Inc v Walt

Disney Co, 202 F3d 1199, 1210 (9th Cir 2000). 

 By asking the court to “continue operating under the

validly issued [p]ermits,” Doc #8-1, plaintiffs appear to seek

relief that would disturb the status quo. Before this controversy

began, plaintiffs applied for and received three permits. Doc #3

at 4-5. These permits did not, however, grant plaintiffs the

categorical right to “continue operating.” Hence, to the extent

plaintiffs’ proposed temporary restraining order prevents any

interference from the City of Oakland, it disturbs the status quo

between the parties and requires plaintiffs to carry a heavy burden

of persuasion. 

In any event, plaintiffs fail on the present record to

demonstrate that the City violated plaintiffs’ due process and

equal protection rights under 42 USC § 1983. In essence,

plaintiffs allege that the City, prompted by a political office

holder, impaired and interfered with plaintiffs’ property rights

through the manipulation of the local planning process. Such

Case 3:06-cv-04094-VRW Document 23 Filed 08/17/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

conduct — hardly unheard of — may be found to violate plaintiffs’

substantive rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and possibly

other laws. The evidence presently at bar raises only a suspicion

that this claim may have merit. More is required to warrant

provisional relief. Further, plaintiffs cannot show irreparable

harm because the non-speculative injuries they allege are

compensable through a damages award. 

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ ex parte motion for issuance of

a temporary restraining order and order to show cause regarding a

preliminary injunction is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04094-VRW Document 23 Filed 08/17/06 Page 3 of 3