Ickes v. University of California College of the Law, San Francisco

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TENOR D. ICKES, Case No. 25-cv-05859-EMC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 9 v. MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 10 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COLLEGE OF THE LAW, SAN 11 FRANCISCO, Docket No. 9 12 Defendant.

14 Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff Tenor D. Ickes’s motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”). The main relief sought by Mr. Ickes is immediate reinstatement as a student to Defendant University of California College of the law, San Francisco (“UC Law”).

17 Mr. Ickes’s motion for relief is DENIED.1 Mr. Ickes has moved for a TRO because the first day of instruction for UC Law is coming up soon, on August 18, 2025. But Mr. Ickes has known about his disqualification from UC Law since May 2025. Furthermore, he first filed this lawsuit on July 11, 2025. Given this timing, Mr. Ickes easily “could have sought relief by motion for a preliminary injunction at an earlier date without the necessity of seeking last-minute relief by a motion for a TRO.” Burrows v. OneWest Bank, No. C 12-00995 SBA, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23 193340, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2012). Mr. Ickes has not “explain[ed] [his] delay in seeking injunctive relief and creating the exigency that purportedly warrants ex parte relief.” Id. Mr. The Court notes that UC Law has objected to certain evidence submitted by Mr. Ickes; in turn, Mr. Ickes has objected to the brief filed by UC Law on the basis that it exceeds the page length permitted by the Local Rules and is not signed. The signature issue has been addressed by UC Ickes’s “undue delay constitutes laches and provides a basis for denying [his] TRO [a]pplication.”

2 |) Id. 3 Moreover, Mr. Ickes has failed to show a likelihood of success or even serious questions on the merits. See All. for the Wild Rockies v. Pena, 865 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 2017) (stating test for preliminary injunctive relief, and noting that there is a sliding scale variant). Mr. Ickes is || challenging Academic Regulation § 1502, which concerns readmission. He asserts that the language of the regulation discourages disabled students, such as himself, from raising their disabilities as an issue. But Mr. Ickes has not addressed why he could not have asked for an accommodation for his disability before he was ever disqualified. And on its face, § 1502 does || not prevent or deter students from providing any information other than that minimally required 11 by UC Law in order to engage in an interactive process with students seeking such. Furthermore, || Mr. Ickes has not explained why, when seeking readmission post-disqualification, he could not 13 have explained to UC Law that any extenuating circumstances were not likely to continue if he || were given an accommodation a reasonable requirement under Section 1502.

15 The Court therefore denies Mr. Ickes’s motion for a TRO.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19 Dated: August 15, 2025 ED . CHEN 22 United States District Judge