Vela v. The State Bar of California

E.D. California

Vela v. The State Bar of California

DecidedMarch 12, 2024

Docket1:23-cv-01638

StatusUnknown

This text of Vela v. The State Bar of California (Vela v. The State Bar of California) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Vela v. The State Bar of California, (E.D. Cal. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 PASTOR ISABEL VELA, ) Case No.: 1:23-cv-1638 JLT BAM ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING 13 v. ) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN EMERGENCY ) HEARING 14 THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, et al., ) ) (Docs. 3, 8) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16

17 Plaintiff seeks to hold the State Bar of California liable for violations of her civil rights. (See 18 generally Doc. 9.) When Plaintiff initiated this action, she also filed a “Motion for Emergency Hearing 19 in the Interest of Justice,” requesting a hearing, injunction, and related costs. (Doc. 3.) 20 The assigned magistrate judge construed Plaintiff’s motion as a request for a preliminary 21 injunction. (Doc. 8 at 2.) The magistrate judge found Plaintiff did not show a likelihood of success on 22 the merits and made “no showing that she will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction, 23 that the balance of equities tips in her favor, or that an injunction is in the public interest.” (Id. at 2-3.) 24 Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the motion be denied. (Id. at 3.) 25 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified her that any 26 objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 8 at 3.) The Court advised Plaintiff that the “failure to file 27 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id., citing 28 Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the 1 || time to do so has passed. 2 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 3 || Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are 4 || supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 5 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated (Doc. 8) are ADOPTED in full. 6 2. Plaintiff's motion for an emergency hearing, construed as a motion for preliminary 7 injunction (Doc. 3), is DENIED. 8 9 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: _March 12, 2024 Cerin | Tower 11 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 PASTOR ISABEL VELA, ) Case No.: 1:23-cv-1638 JLT BAM ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING 13 v. ) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN EMERGENCY ) HEARING 14 THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, et al., ) ) (Docs. 3, 8) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16

17 Plaintiff seeks to hold the State Bar of California liable for violations of her civil rights. (See 18 generally Doc. 9.) When Plaintiff initiated this action, she also filed a “Motion for Emergency Hearing 19 in the Interest of Justice,” requesting a hearing, injunction, and related costs. (Doc. 3.) 20 The assigned magistrate judge construed Plaintiff’s motion as a request for a preliminary 21 injunction. (Doc. 8 at 2.) The magistrate judge found Plaintiff did not show a likelihood of success on 22 the merits and made “no showing that she will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction, 23 that the balance of equities tips in her favor, or that an injunction is in the public interest.” (Id. at 2-3.) 24 Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the motion be denied. (Id. at 3.) 25 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified her that any 26 objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 8 at 3.) The Court advised Plaintiff that the “failure to file 27 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id., citing 28 Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the 1 || time to do so has passed. 2 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 3 || Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are 4 || supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 5 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated (Doc. 8) are ADOPTED in full. 6 2. Plaintiff's motion for an emergency hearing, construed as a motion for preliminary 7 injunction (Doc. 3), is DENIED. 8 9 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: _March 12, 2024 Cerin | Tower 11 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Vela v. The State Bar of California, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vela-v-the-state-bar-of-california-caed-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack