Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01746/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01746-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:405 Fair Housing Act

---

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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

HENADZI HARBARUK, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

THOMAS HOGAN, ESQ., et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-1746-GEB-EFB PS (TEMP) 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff Henadzi Harbaruk is proceeding pro se in this action brought under the Fair 

Housing Act. The matter was referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 

302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

 On August 21, 2015, plaintiff filed an application for a stay seeking to temporarily restrain 

or enjoin the termination of his commercial tenancy. ECF No. 4. The court denied that 

application without prejudice, in part, because it failed to address plaintiff’s likelihood of success 

on the merits. ECF No. 19. Plaintiff filed another application for a stay asserting in conclusory 

fashion that “there is a great likelihood that the Plaintiff will be successful on the merits of his 

case.” ECF No. 22 at 5. That application again fails to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the 

merits. Indeed, there is a pending motion to dismiss which notes that the Fair Housing Act does 

not apply to a commercial tenancy. ECF No. 23-1. In light of plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate 

“that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the 

Case 2:15-cv-01746-GEB-EFB Document 28 Filed 11/24/15 Page 1 of 3
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

absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction 

is in the public interest” his application must be denied. Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 

1127 (9th Cir. 2009), citing Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 129 S.Ct. 365, 

374 (2008). Accordingly, it is recommended that plaintiff’s October 20, 2015 application for a 

stay be denied. 

 Plaintiff also filed a first amended complaint. ECF No. 20. Rule 15(a)(1) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[a] party may amend its pleading once as a matter of 

course within: (A) 21 days after serving it, or (B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive 

pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a 

motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.” Here, defendant Thomas Hogan filed a 

motion to dismiss the original complaint on September 4, 2015. ECF No. 9. Plaintiff’s October 

16, 2015 amended complaint was filed more than 21 days after defendant Hogan filed his motion 

to dismiss. 

 Nonetheless, Rule 15(a)(2) provides that “[i]n all other cases, a party may amend its 

pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court should 

freely give leave when justice so requires.” FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2). The policy of freely 

granting leave to amend should be applied with “extreme liberality.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. 

Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir.1987). Here, plaintiff’s pro se status and the interests of 

judicial economy weigh in favor of granting plaintiff leave to proceed on the amended complaint. 

 Moreover, on November 6, 2015 defendant Hogan filed a response to plaintiff’s first 

amended complaint in the form of a motion to dismiss.1 Likewise, on November 9, 2015 

defendants Ben Tiner, Jenny Wilkins and Tiner Properties, Inc., also filed a response to plaintiff’s 

amended complaint in the form of a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike, which are set to be 

heard before the undersigned on December 9, 2015. 

///// 

 1

 That motion, however, was noticed for hearing before the previously assigned 

Magistrate Judge. The hearing of that motion, therefore, will be reset for hearing before the 

undersigned. 

Case 2:15-cv-01746-GEB-EFB Document 28 Filed 11/24/15 Page 2 of 3
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

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend and the amended complaint filed October 16, 2015 

(ECF No. 20) is deemed the operative pleading; 

 2. Defendants’ motions to dismiss filed September 4, 2015 (ECF No. 9) and September 8, 

2015 (ECF No. 12) are denied without prejudice as having been rendered moot; and 

 3. Defendant Hogan’s motion to dismiss filed November 6, 2015 (ECF No. 23) shall be 

heard before the undersigned on December 9, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 8. 

 Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s October 20, 2015 ex parte 

application for a stay (ECF No. 22) be denied. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: November 23, 2015. 

Case 2:15-cv-01746-GEB-EFB Document 28 Filed 11/24/15 Page 3 of 3