Hazari v. County of Santa Clara

Background

Cyrus Hazari, proceeding without a lawyer, moved for a temporary restraining order asking the court to stay, or pause, all proceedings in the case for one year. The court reviewed Hazari’s papers and concluded that the defendants did not need to respond.

Legal standard

The court explained that a temporary restraining order uses the same standard as a preliminary injunction. This is an extraordinary equitable remedy. The requesting party must show a likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without preliminary relief, that the balance of hardships favors the party, and that the injunction would serve the public interest. The court also noted that an injunction may still issue when the balance of hardships sharply favors the plaintiff if the other requirements are met.

Court’s reasoning

The court found that Hazari had not met his burden to show that he was likely to succeed on the merits. It stated that the issue of a further stay had recently been decided against Hazari and that the court had also denied his request to set aside the order denying that stay. The court characterized the temporary-restraining-order motion as essentially a second attempt to seek reconsideration.

The court additionally noted that, in recognition of Hazari’s medical issues, the defendants’ pending motion to dismiss had been submitted without a hearing and the case-management conference had been set to occur by video conference. The court stated that the case was almost six years old and that it was time to adjudicate it on the merits.

Disposition

Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered that Hazari’s motion for a temporary restraining order was DENIED.