Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-mc-80070/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-mc-80070-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Karim Muhammad
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re JAMES KARIM MUHAMMAD,

 Petitioner.

Case No. 15-mc-80070-JST 

ORDER DISMISSING EX PARTE 

MOTION FOR LACK OF 

JURISDICTION

Re: ECF No. 2

Before the Court is Petitioner James Karim Muhammad’s Ex Parte Motion for Emergency 

Protective Order and Injunctive Relief Restraining Creditor, North Richmond Senior Housing Inc. 

from Enforcing Judgments of the State of California in Violation of Chapter 7 [Dis]charge. ECF 

No. 1.

While the petition is styled as a motion for an emergency protective order or a temporary 

restraining order, it is clear from the text of the document that Petitioner seeks to appeal a future 

decision of the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California. Petitioner recently 

requested a protective order from that court, in Bankruptcy Case No. 14-41311, to prevent 

enforcement of an unlawful detainer judgment rendered in the Contra Costa County Superior 

Court. Petitioner expects the bankruptcy court to deny his request for a protective order, although 

as of now that court has taken no action on Petitioner’s request. 

This Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to hear Petitioner’s appeal. This Court cannot 

hear an appeal from the bankruptcy court unless that court has issued a final order or judgment. 

See Bankr. L.R. 8001-2(a). The bankruptcy court has not issued a final order denying Petitioner’s 

motion for a protective order. 

Although the lack of a final order from the bankruptcy court is dispositive, the Court notes 

that there are additional problems with Petitioner’s petition. First, the Court can only grant a TRO 

Case 3:15-mc-80070-JST Document 3 Filed 03/09/15 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

if Petitioner meets one of the following tests. First, he could show (1) a strong likelihood of 

success on the merits, (2) the possibility of irreparable injury to him if preliminary relief is not 

granted, and (3) a balance of hardships favoring him. Second, he could show a combination of 

probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable harm. Third, he could show that 

serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor. Behymer-Smith 

ex rel. Behymer v. Coral Academy of Science, 427 F.Supp.2d 969, 972 (D. Nev., 2006) (citations 

omitted). But he has shown none of these. He does indicate that he is about to be evicted, but he 

shows no legal error in the proceedings below, and so he has not shown that serious questions are 

raised, much less that he is likely to succeed on the merits. 

Also, Petitioner has not given any notice to the opposing parties. Local Rule 65-1(b) 

specifically requires that “on or before the day of an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining 

order, counsel applying for the temporary restraining order must deliver notice of such motion to 

opposing counsel or party.” Petitioner’s excuse that “there is not enough time for debtor to serve 

regular notice of hearing on creditor and its attorneys,” ECF No. 1 at 2, simply isn’t true. 

The Court hereby dismisses Petitioner’s ex parte motion for lack of jurisdiction.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 8, 2015 

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

 

1

To the extent that jurisdiction over Petitioner’s claim even exists in the United States District 

Court, the Court notes that Petitioner has already filed another action before a different judge of 

this district challenging the underlying unlawful detainer action. See Muhammad v. N. Richmond 

Senior Housing, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00629-WHO, ECF No. 1 (notice of removal and countercomplaint).

Case 3:15-mc-80070-JST Document 3 Filed 03/09/15 Page 2 of 2