Marowitz v. City of Berkeley
- Sallie Kim
- 3:26-cv-06283
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Andrew Marowitz v. City of Berkeley, Judge Lin denied emergency relief because Marowitz did not show irreparable harm.
Andrew Marowitz’s request for immediate relief was denied; the order also provides guidance and legal-resource information for his self-represented participation in the case.
What happened
In Andrew Marowitz v. City of Berkeley, Andrew Marowitz asked the court to temporarily stop enforcement of Berkeley’s Exterior Elevated Elements Inspection Mandate. He said he had been charged a $500 fee and might face additional fees and foreclosure proceedings involving his property.
The court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. It found that monetary losses could be addressed with money damages and that the possible foreclosure was speculative, so Marowitz had not shown the immediate, noncompensable harm required for an injunction.
Judge Rita F. Lin also noted that Marowitz was representing himself and provided information about free legal resources and court rules. The order addressed only the request for temporary emergency relief.
The detailed version
- Marowitz v. City of Berkeley · No. 3:26-cv-06283
- Sallie Kim
- Sept. 1, 2026
Background
Andrew Marowitz moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against the City of Berkeley and the other defendants. He argued that he had been charged a $500 fee for failing to comply with Berkeley’s Exterior Elevated Elements Inspection Mandate and would continue to incur fees while he remained out of compliance. He also argued that defendants might eventually place a lien on his property and begin foreclosure proceedings.
Legal standard
The court explained that a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction are extraordinary forms of relief. Generally, the person requesting one must show a likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without immediate relief, that the balance of hardships favors the requested relief, and that an injunction serves the public interest. In some circumstances, a strong showing on the other factors may allow relief when there are serious questions about the merits. The court stated that the standards for the two forms of relief are substantially the same.
Court’s reasoning
The court focused on irreparable harm. It held that monetary injuries normally do not qualify because they can ordinarily be remedied with money damages later. If the fees were ultimately found to have been improperly assessed, the court said Marowitz could be compensated through damages. The court also found his concern about a future lien and foreclosure to be speculative. Because Marowitz had shown only possible monetary and speculative injuries, the court concluded that he had not shown irreparable harm.
Disposition
The court denied Marowitz’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. The order did not state that it resolved the underlying dispute about Berkeley’s inspection mandate or the fees. The court also noted that Marowitz was not represented by a lawyer and provided information about the district court’s website, its handbook for self-represented litigants, the Legal Help Center, and applicable federal and local court rules.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.