Hazari v. County of Santa Clara

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 CYRUS HAZARI, Case No. 19-cv-04392-BLF

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR A 9 v. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

10 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, et al., [Re: ECF No. 102, 103, 104] 11 Defendants.

12 13 On May 20, 2025, Plaintiff Cyrus Hazari (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed a motion for 14 a temporary restraining order requesting the Court to stay all proceedings in this case for a year. See 15 ECF 102 at 2; ECF 103; ECF 104. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s papers and concludes no 16 response from Defendants is required. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s motion is 17 DENIED. 18 I. LEGAL STANDARD 19 Courts use the same standard for issuing a temporary restraining order as that for issuing a 20 preliminary injunction. See Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 1159 n.3 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[T]he 21 legal standards applicable to TROs and preliminary injunctions are substantially identical.” (internal 22 quotation marks and citation omitted)). An injunction is a matter of equitable discretion and is “an 23 extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to 24 such relief.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). A plaintiff 25 seeking preliminary injunctive relief must establish “[1] that he is likely to succeed on the merits, 26 [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance 27 of equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20. “[I]f a 1 likelihood of success on the merits — then a preliminary injunction may still issue if the balance of 2 || hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff's favor, and the other two Winter factors are satisfied.” Friends 3 of the Wild Swan v. Weber, 767 F.3d 936, 942 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citations 4 omitted). 5 || IL DISCUSSION 6 The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden to demonstrate that he is likely 7 to succeed on the merits. The issue of further stay was recently decided against Plaintiff. See ECF 8 87. The Court also denied Plaintiffs request to set aside its Order denying the further stay. See ECF 9 || 93. Plaintiffs motion for a temporary restraining order is essentially a second attempt at 10 || reconsideration. Additionally, in recognizing Plaintiff's medical issues, Defendants’ pending 11 Motion to Dismiss has been taken under submission without a hearing and the Case Management 12 || Conference has been set by video conference. See ECF 101. 5 13 This case is almost 6 years old. It is time to adjudicate it on the merits. 14 I. ORDER 15 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Cyrus Hazari’s Motion a 16 || fora Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED.

|| Datea: May 20, 2025 19 fanipcaiian TH LABSON FREEMAN 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28