Hazari v. County of Santa Clara

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 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.

13 On May 20, 2025, Plaintiff Cyrus Hazari (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed a motion for a temporary restraining order requesting the Court to stay all proceedings in this case for a year. See ECF 102 at 2; ECF 103; ECF 104. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s papers and concludes no response from Defendants is required. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

18 I. LEGAL STANDARD 19 Courts use the same standard for issuing a temporary restraining order as that for issuing a preliminary injunction. See Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 1159 n.3 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[T]he legal standards applicable to TROs and preliminary injunctions are substantially identical.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). An injunction is a matter of equitable discretion and is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). A plaintiff seeking preliminary injunctive relief must establish “[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.” Id. at 20. “[I]f a likelihood of success on the merits — then a preliminary injunction may still issue if the balance of || hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff's favor, and the other two Winter factors are satisfied.” Friends of the Wild Swan v. Weber, 767 F.3d 936, 942 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

5 || IL DISCUSSION 6 The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden to demonstrate that he is likely to succeed on the merits. The issue of further stay was recently decided against Plaintiff. See ECF 87. The Court also denied Plaintiffs request to set aside its Order denying the further stay. See ECF || 93. Plaintiffs motion for a temporary restraining order is essentially a second attempt at || 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 || 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