Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07836/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07836-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 20:1400 Civil Rights of Handicapped Child

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

R.K., a minor, by and through his parents, T.K.

and C.K.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

HAYWARD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,

et al.,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

AND RELATED CROSS COMPLAINT

 /

No. C 06-07836 JSW

ORDER DENYING SECOND

APPLICATION FOR

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER

Now before the Court is the Application for Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) filed

by Plaintiff R.K., a minor, by and through his parents, T.K. and C.K on January 16, 2008. The

Court finds that this matter is appropriate for disposition without oral argument and it is hereby

deemed submitted. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Accordingly, the hearing set for January 18, 2008 is

HEREBY VACATED. Having considered the parties’ papers and the relevant legal authority,

the Court hereby denies the application for a TRO.

As the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of this case, there is no

need to recite them here, except where useful in reaching the disposition.

///

///

///

Case 3:06-cv-07836-JSW Document 142 Filed 01/18/08 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

ANALYSIS

A. Applicable Legal Standard

To prevail on a motion for temporary restraining order or to receive preliminary

injunctive relief, the moving party bears the burden of demonstrating either (1) a combination of

probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury or (2) the existence of

serious questions as to success on the merits and irreparable injury along with a sharp tipping of 

the balance of hardships in favor of the moving party. Stahlbarg International Sales Co. v.

John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839-840 (9th Cir. 2001). These alternative standards are

“not separate tests but the outer reaches of a single continuum.” International Jensen, Inc. v.

Metrosound U.S.A., 4 F.3d 819, 822 (9th Cir. 1993). “Because injunctive relief prior to trial is a

harsh and extraordinary remedy, it is to be granted sparingly and only in cases where the issues

are clear and well defined and the plaintiff has established a reasonable certainty of prevailing

at trial.” Watermark, Inc. v. United Stations, Inc., 219 U.S.P.Q. 31, 32-33 (C.D. Cal. 1982)

(citing Dymo Industries, Inc. v. Tapeprinter, Inc., 326 F.2d 141 (9th Cir. 1964)). Moreover, “on

application for preliminary injunction the court is not bound to decide doubtful and difficult

questions of law or disputed questions of fact.” Dymo Industries, 326 F.2d at 143; see also

Mayview Corp. v. Rodstein, 480 F.2d 714, 719 (9th Cir. 1973) (reversing grant of preliminary

injunction based on existence of disputed factual issues).

Under either formulation of the test, a party seeking a preliminary injunction always

must show that a significant threat of irreparable harm exists. American Passage Media Corp.

v. Cass Communications, Inc., 750 F.2d 1470, 1473 (9th Cir. 1985). Thus, if the moving party

cannot show irreparable harm, a court need not reach the issue of likelihood of success on the

merits. Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Publ’g Co., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th Cir. 1985).

In addition, within the Ninth Circuit, the Court must also consider the public interest

when it assesses the propriety of issuing an injunction. Sammartano v. First Judicial District

Court, 303 F.3d 959, 973 (9th Cir. 2002). 

///

///

Case 3:06-cv-07836-JSW Document 142 Filed 01/18/08 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

B. Plaintiff Fails to Show a Significant Threat of Irreparable Harm.

Plaintiff seeks to stay the due process hearing set to be held by the California Office of

Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) on January 22, 2008. The OAH has dismissed Plaintiff’s

claims relating to the 2005 settlement agreement between Plaintiff’s parents and the Hayward

Unified School District (the “District”) on the grounds that the OAH lacks the authority to hear

such claims. Still pending before the OAH are Plaintiff’s claims regarding his educational

placement and services for 2006 to the present. 

Plaintiff contends that he will suffer irreparable harm by having to litigate his claims in

two different forums and being forced to have two separate due process proceedings. Although

Plaintiff may be inconvenienced, he has not shown that he will suffer irreparable injury. He

will have an opportunity to litigate all his claims. Moreover, until the claims currently pending

before the OAH are exhausted, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over them,

and thus cannot hear them. Staying the OAH proceeding would preclude Plaintiff from

exhausting his pending administrative claims.

Plaintiff also argues that his remedies in the due process proceeding may be limited

because his claims pending before the OAH only address issues arising from 2006 to the

present. However, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that, to the extent he is entitled to remedies in

addition to those awarded by the OAH, if any, he would be precluded from seeking such

additional remedies from this Court. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not

demonstrated that a significant threat of irreparable harm exists. American Passage Media, 750

F.2d at 1473. Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s application for a TRO.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s application for a TRO.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 18, 2008 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-07836-JSW Document 142 Filed 01/18/08 Page 3 of 3