Cornejo v. Tumlin
- Charles Breyer
- 3:20-cv-05813
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Cornejo v. Tumlin, Judge Breyer denied Marimar Cornejo’s temporary restraining order because she did not show likely irreparable harm from her towed car.
Marimar Cornejo was denied immediate court-ordered relief concerning her Toyota Camry; the defendants were not restrained by the order.
What happened
Marimar Cornejo, representing herself, asked the court to stop the defendants from holding, selling, or disposing of her Toyota Camry. She alleged that the car was towed without warning, notice, or a chance to be heard, and that its loss was causing emotional distress and hardship.
The court said a temporary restraining order requires a showing of likely success or serious questions about the claims, likely harm that money cannot repair, favorable balancing of hardships, and a public benefit. The court said it was unclear whether Cornejo was likely to win, but she had not shown likely irreparable harm. It viewed her main injury as economic and potentially measurable with money.
Judge Charles R. Breyer denied Cornejo’s application for a temporary restraining order. The order did not decide whether Cornejo’s underlying claims about the towing would ultimately succeed.
The detailed version
- Cornejo v. Tumlin · No. 3:20-cv-05813
- Charles Breyer
- Aug. 20, 2020
Background
Marimar Cornejo, a self-represented plaintiff, applied for a temporary restraining order against Jeffrey Tumlin and the other listed defendants. Her claims arose from the alleged towing of her Toyota Camry in February 2020. Cornejo alleged that the defendants towed the car without warning, notice, or an opportunity to be heard. She also alleged that the car might be sold or disposed of and asked the court to prevent the defendants from holding, transferring, selling, or otherwise disposing of it and to require its immediate return.
Cornejo cited constitutional claims under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, along with several state-law tort claims. She described emotional distress and hardship, but the court identified her primary claimed injury as the loss of the car and expenses related to replacing or renting a vehicle. The opinion noted that it was unclear whether the car had already been sold.
Legal standard
The court explained that a temporary restraining order is an extraordinary remedy. To obtain one, the applicant generally must show a likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without court intervention, that the balance of hardships favors the applicant, and that an injunction would serve the public interest. Alternatively, the applicant may show serious questions going to the merits and that the hardships sharply favor relief, while still meeting the irreparable-harm and public-interest requirements.
Court’s reasoning
The court did not determine whether Cornejo was likely to succeed on her underlying claims. Instead, it focused on irreparable harm. The court declined to presume irreparable injury merely because Cornejo alleged constitutional violations. It explained that the claimed harm was primarily economic: the loss of the Toyota Camry and related expenses. Although Cornejo argued that her particular car could not be replaced, the court concluded that the losses associated with an improper towing could be quantified and compensated with money if she ultimately prevailed.
Disposition
Because Cornejo could not meet the requirements for temporary restraining relief, the court denied the application for a temporary restraining order. The opinion did not resolve the merits of Cornejo’s constitutional or state-law claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.