Sternberg v. Hendrickson
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-04271
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Sternberg v. Hendrickson, Judge Martinez-Olguin denied Sternberg’s preliminary-injunction motion and granted in part and denied in part his administrative motion.
Michael C. Sternberg, who sought the injunction and administrative relief, and the defendants named in his requested orders.
What happened
In Michael C. Sternberg, et al. v. Cindy Hendrickson, et al., Sternberg sought a preliminary injunction involving California Family Code section 76432, access to court files, and investigations or referrals concerning alleged misconduct.
The court explained that Sternberg had to show that the law and facts clearly favored his position, along with likely irreparable harm, favorable balancing of harms, and a public benefit. The court said earlier orders resolving motions to dismiss showed that Sternberg had failed to state a claim for relief, so he could not meet the higher standard required for the injunction.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. The judge granted in part and denied in part Sternberg’s administrative motion: the request for a ruling without oral argument was granted, but the request to move up the hearing was denied. The court did not reach the parties’ remaining arguments.
The detailed version
- Sternberg v. Hendrickson · No. 3:24-cv-04271
- Martinez-Olguin
- Nov. 17, 2025
Background
Michael C. Sternberg moved for a preliminary injunction. He asked the court to find California Family Code section 76432 unconstitutional on its face and as applied to him under the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal-protection clause, and to direct certain defendants to stop enforcing it. He also challenged alleged differences in remote access to court files and copying fees, seeking equal access or alternative file-copying procedures. His requested relief further included reports and referrals concerning alleged due-process violations, misconduct, crimes, and a possible criminal investigation.
Sternberg separately filed an administrative motion seeking an immediate ruling without oral argument or an earlier hearing date. The court had already decided the motion could be resolved on the papers and had canceled the scheduled hearing.
Legal standard and analysis
A preliminary injunction is temporary relief issued before final judgment. The court stated that the requesting party must show a likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, that the balance of equities favors an injunction, and that an injunction would serve the public interest. For the type of relief Sternberg sought, the law and facts had to clearly favor his position, rather than merely suggest a likelihood of success.
The court relied on its earlier orders resolving motions to dismiss in this case and stated that Sternberg had failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Because of that failure, the court concluded that he could not show that the law and facts clearly favored his position. The court stated that, because the motion failed on this ground, it did not reach the parties’ remaining arguments.
Rulings
The court denied Sternberg’s motion for a preliminary injunction. It granted in part and denied in part his administrative motion: it granted the request for a ruling on the papers and otherwise denied the motion, including the request to advance the hearing date.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.