Aenlle v. County of San Mateo

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 VICTOR AENLLE, Case No. 25-cv-07936-JD

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE TEMPORARY 9 v. RESTRAINING ORDER

10 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiff Victor Aenlle has asked for a temporary restraining order against defendants the 14 County of San Mateo, County officials, and the County Board of Supervisors (together the 15 County), with respect to searching his property and imposing fines for code violations. Dkt. No. 16 2. Aenlle applied for a TRO in connection with filing a complaint alleging civil rights violations 17 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on a variety of constitutional grounds. Dkt. No. 1. A TRO is denied. 18 The record does not indicate that Aenlle served the TRO application on the County, or 19 otherwise provided adequate notice of it. The application states that Aenlle “is giving the requisite 20 notice of this motion to Defendants.” Dkt. No. 2-1 at 8. Aenlle was also ordered to provide notice 21 by Magistrate Judge Lisa Cisneros. Dkt. No. 4 at 1. Even so, proof of service is not in the record, 22 Aenlle’s proposed summonses do not mention the TRO, and no attorney for the County has 23 appeared. See Dkt. Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. 24 This will not affect resolution of the TRO because the application falls short under the 25 more generous standards of a noticed TRO application, which are the same as the standards for 26 preliminary injunctions. See Zithromia Ltd. v. Gazeus Negocios De Internet SA, No. 17-cv-06475- 27 JD, 2017 WL 5612701, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2017). The Court has written extensively on 1 Networks, LLC, No. 21-cv-04442-JD, 2021 WL 2894138, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2021). In 2 pertinent summary, the Supreme Court has emphasized that injunctive relief is “an extraordinary 3 remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 4 (2008). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on 5 the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the 6 balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Alliance for 7 the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 20). 8 The essential element missing in Aenlle’s application is a plausible allegation of imminent 9 or likely irreparable harm. See Zithromia Ltd., 2017 WL 5612701, at *2 (“Immediate and 10 irreparable harm” must appear “‘clearly’ in the case of Rule 65(b)(1), and be threatened or likely 11 under the preliminary injunction standard.”). To start, Aenlle says the County will “conduct and 12 rely on warrantless inspections” and “leverage unlawfully obtained evidence in enforcement 13 actions” without a TRO. Dkt. No. 2-1 at 7. But the record indicates that the last time the County 14 “entered and inspected” the property was on July 24, 2024. Dkt. No. 2-2 ¶ 41. This was 15 approximately 14 months before Aenlle filed a complaint and TRO application in September 16 2025. See Dkt. Nos. 1, 2. This lengthy delay sharply undercuts the likelihood that Aenlle faces an 17 imminent injury that warrants extraordinary relief. See Anonomatic Inc. v. Skyflow Inc., No. 22- 18 cv-01469-JD, 2023 WL 149054, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2023); Linton v. Becerra, No. 18-cv- 19 07653-JD, 2020 WL 2614870, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2020); Lydo Enterprises, Inc. v. City of 20 Las Vegas, 745 F.2d 1211, 1213 (9th Cir. 1984). There is also no evidence in the record that the 21 County is planning to enter his property again at a reasonably foreseeable time. Aenlle’s passing 22 reference to a possible entry in November 2024, see Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 102, does not fix the shortfall of 23 irreparable harm evidence. So too for the mention of drone flights, which was not supported by 24 facts stating when or how they may have occurred, and which was not alleged in Aenlle’s 70-page 25 complaint. 26 The concern that the County might “leverage unlawfully obtained evidence in enforcement 27 actions,” Dkt. No. 2-1 at 7, does not demonstrate imminent and irreparable harm. Aenlle did not 1 would be barred from raising objections to evidence in the event an enforcement action comes to 2 || pass in the future. 3 The same goes for the claim of possible destruction of buildings on the property. Aenlle 4 || says the County made “threats of effective demolition” of homes and accessory agricultural 5 || buildings because “under the County’s current position, the only path it has left open to its 6 || purported compliance is demolition of Plaintiff's residence.” Jd. at 7. The is purely speculative. 7 Aenlle did not demonstrate that the County has actually ordered the destruction or removal of any 8 || buildings, or is threatening to do so. 9 The possibility of administrative fines does not establish irreparable harm for injunctive 10 || relief. Whether Aenlle has actually been forced to pay a fine is not entirely clear, but in any event 11 the wrongful levying and collection of a fine may be remedied by an order of a refund, which 12 forecloses equitable relief. See Rahman y. City of Oakland, No. 3:22-cv-05038-JD, 2022 WL 5 13 || 4292954, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2022) (“The possibility that adequate compensatory or other 14 || corrective relief will be available at a later date, in the ordinary course of litigation, weighs heavily 3 15 against a claim of irreparable harm.” (quoting Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 90 (1974))); a 16 || Maffick LLC v. Facebook, Inc., No. 20-cv-05222-JD, 2020 WL 5257853, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 3 17 || 2020) (“It is well established . . . that such monetary injury is not normally considered 18 || irreparable.” (quoting Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Comm'n vy. Nat'l Football League, 634 19 || F.2d 1197, 1202 (9th Cir. 1980))). 20 Overall, Aenlle has not demonstrated that he is entitled to the extraordinary relief of a TRO 21 to prevent an imminent and irreparable injury. The application is denied. 23 Dated: October 8, 2025 24 25 JAMES$PONATO- United tates District Judge 26 27 28