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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

HOWARD HERSHIPS, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE, ET AL., 

Defendants.

CASE NO. 17-cv-00473-YGR 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Re: Dkt. No. 53 

Plaintiff initiated this action on January 30, 2017, alleging certain civil rights violations 

against defendants, related to the imposition of certain traffic fines and the subsequent suspension 

of his driver’s license for failure to pay the same. (Dkt. Nos. 1.) Concurrently, plaintiff also filed 

a motion for a temporary restraining order asking this Court to order reinstatement of his driver’s 

license. (Dkt. No. 3.) The Court held a phone conference on February 6, 2017, during which the 

parties discussed potential avenues for informal resolution of the instant action. (Dkt. No. 9.) On 

February 13, 2017, plaintiff filed an amended motion for a temporary restraining order, in which 

he made claims that defendants were refusing to participate in the necessary processes to resolve 

his claim. (Dkt. No. 10.) On February 15, 2017, the Court denied plaintiff’s motion, explaining 

that he failed to establish likelihood of success, or that he was likely to suffer irreparable harm. 

(Dkt. No. 14 at 2.) 

Now before the Court is plaintiff’s renewed motion for a temporary restraining order, 

asking the Court to enjoin defendants from imposing all traffic court penalty assessments, fines, 

and fees. (Dkt. No. 53.) Additionally, plaintiff complains that without his requested relief, he 

would not be able to obtain reinstatement of his driver’s license. Plaintiff’s requested relief in the 

instant motion appears at first blush to be distinct from his requested relief in his initial motion for 

a temporary restraining order. However, essentially, plaintiff seeks to have this Court reconsider 

its prior order denying his motion for a temporary restraining order. 
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 Californi

a

“Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered 

evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is 

an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 

(9th Cir. 1993). Local Rule 7-9(b) requires that a party seeking leave to file a motion for 

reconsideration show reasonable diligence in making the motion and one of the following: 

(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law exists from 

that which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which 

reconsideration is sought. The party also must show that in the exercise of reasonable 

diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the 

time of the interlocutory order; or 

(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of 

such order; or 

(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal 

arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order. 

Pursuant to Local Rule 7-9(c), “[n]o motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration 

may repeat any oral or written argument made by the applying party in support of or in opposition 

to the interlocutory order which the party now seeks to have reconsidered.” Reconsideration of a 

prior ruling is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of 

Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). 

As an initial matter, plaintiff did not obtain leave to file a motion for reconsideration, and 

his instant motion is replete with arguments raised in his previous motion for a temporary 

restraining order in violation of Civil Local Rules 7-9(a) and (c). Additionally, plaintiff does not 

satisfy any of the grounds for reconsideration set forth above. Thus, reconsideration of the Court’s 

prior denial of plaintiff’s initial motion for a temporary restraining order is inappropriate here. 

In any event, even if the Court were to reach the merits of plaintiff’s motion for a 

temporary restraining order, plaintiff would not prevail. Requests for temporary restraining orders 

are governed by the same general standards that govern the issuance of a preliminary injunction. 

See New Motor Vehicle Bd. v. Orrin W. Fox Co., 434 U.S. 1345, 1347 n.2 (1977); Stuhlbarg lnt'l 

Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2001). A 

preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary and drastic remedy” that is never awarded as of right. 
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689–90 (2008) (internal citations omitted). Whether seeking a 

temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must establish four factors: (1) 

that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the 

absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) that an 

injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 

20 (2008). Plaintiff has not established that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim, nor 

that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief. 

Accordingly for the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion for a temporary 

restraining order. 

This Order terminates Docket Number 53. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 26, 2017 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE