Aenlle v. County of San Mateo

Background

Victor Aenlle applied for a temporary restraining order against the County of San Mateo, County officials, and the County Board of Supervisors, which the opinion collectively calls “the County.” He sought to prevent searches of his property and the imposition of fines for code violations. He filed the application with a complaint alleging civil-rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Notice and Legal Standard

The court said the record did not show that Aenlle had served the County with the temporary-restraining-order application or otherwise provided adequate notice. The application said he was giving the required notice, and a magistrate judge had also ordered him to provide notice, but the record contained no proof of service. The court nevertheless considered the request under the standards for a noticed temporary restraining order, which are the same standards used for a preliminary injunction.

A temporary restraining order is an extraordinary form of emergency relief. To obtain it under the applicable standard, a plaintiff must show a likely chance of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without the order, that the balance of hardships favors the plaintiff, and that the order serves the public interest. The court focused on the requirement of likely irreparable harm—serious harm that cannot adequately be repaired later.

Court’s Reasoning

The court found that Aenlle had not shown imminent or likely irreparable harm. He asserted that the County would conduct or rely on warrantless inspections and use allegedly unlawful evidence in enforcement proceedings. But the last County entry and inspection identified in the record occurred on July 24, 2024, approximately 14 months before Aenlle filed the complaint and application. The record did not show that the County planned to enter the property again at a reasonably foreseeable time. A reference to a possible entry in November 2024 did not cure this problem, and the mention of drone flights was unsupported by facts about when or how they occurred and was not alleged in the complaint.

The court also rejected Aenlle’s other asserted harms as insufficient. The possibility that the County might use evidence in a future enforcement action did not establish imminent and irreparable harm. Aenlle had not shown that he would be barred from objecting to that evidence later. His concern that buildings might be destroyed was speculative because he had not shown that the County had ordered or threatened to order their destruction or removal. The possibility of administrative fines likewise did not establish irreparable harm because a wrongfully collected fine could be addressed through a refund or other later relief.

Disposition

The court denied Aenlle’s application for a temporary restraining order. This order addressed only the request for emergency injunctive relief; it did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims. Judge James Donato signed the order on October 8, 2025.