Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03173/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03173-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kortney Blythe
Plaintiff
City of Berkeley
Defendant

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KORTNEY BLYTHE,

Plaintiff

v.

CITY OF BERKELEY,

Defendant /

No. C 07-3173 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION

Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion, filed June 26, 2007, for a preliminary injunction

enjoining defendant from enforcing Berkeley Municipal Code § 13.52.020. Defendant has

filed opposition, to which plaintiff has replied. The matter came on regularly for hearing on

September 28, 2007. Michael Millen appeared on behalf of plaintiff and Matthew Orebic of

the Berkeley City Attorney’s Office appeared on behalf of defendant. Having considered

the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, and the arguments of

counsel, and for the reasons stated on the record, the Court rules as follows.

In order to obtain a preliminary injunction, a party may show either:

“(1) a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of

irreparable injury if relief is not granted; or (2) the existence of serious

questions going to the merits and that the balance of hardships tips

sharply in its favor.”

See Int’l Jensen, Inc. v. Metrosound U.S.A., Inc., 4 F.3d 819, 822 (9th Cir. 1993) (citation

omitted). Additionally, under either formulation, “the district court must consider the public

Case 3:07-cv-03173-MMC Document 24 Filed 09/28/07 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

interest as a factor in balancing the hardships when the public interest may be affected.” 

Caribbean Marine Services Co., Inc. v. Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988) (citation

omitted).

Here, with respect to plaintiff’s facial challenge as brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983, the Court finds plaintiff has not made a sufficient showing under either formulation. 

See, e.g., Virginia v. Hicks, 539 U.S. 113, 118 n.2 (2003). 

With respect to plaintiff’s facial challenge as brought under the Unruh Act, Cal. Civ.

Code § 52.1, plaintiff has not shown a probability of success on the merits. Although

plaintiff has shown the existence of serious questions going to the merits, see, e.g., Ames

v. City of Hermosa Beach, 16 Cal.App.3d 146, 152 (1971), plaintiff has not shown the

balance of hardships tips sharply in her favor or that the balance of public interests relevant

to the claim weigh in favor of injunctive relief. 

In particular, plaintiff has not shown a likelihood that she will be arrested again under

§ 13.52.022 were she to engage in the same or similar conduct. See, e.g., City of Los

Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 111 (1983). Plaintiff offers no evidence that arrests for

similar conduct were made under § 13.52.020 either before or in the 12 months following

her arrest, nor has she offered any other evidence suggesting a likelihood of recurrence. 

Absent a showing of the likelihood of recurrence, the balance of hardships does not tip

sharply in plaintiff’s favor. See id. Additionally, with respect to the public interest, although

the “loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably

constitutes irreparable injury,” see Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976) (citation

omitted), plaintiff here has made no showing that her First Amendment rights have been

abridged. Indeed, plaintiff has not addressed in any manner the constitutionality of the

University’s policy underlying the campus police department’s request that plaintiff cease

her activities on campus. 

//

//

//

Case 3:07-cv-03173-MMC Document 24 Filed 09/28/07 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

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-03173-MMC Document 24 Filed 09/28/07 Page 3 of 3