Hazari v. County of Santa Clara
- Beth Freeman
- 5:19-cv-04392
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Hazari v. County of Santa Clara, Judge Freeman denied Hazari’s temporary restraining order without prejudice to seeking a preliminary injunction, finding no likely success.
Cyrus Hazari’s requests for emergency relief and a disability accommodation were affected; the County of Santa Clara and the other captioned defendants were the opposing parties.
What happened
In Hazari v. County of Santa Clara, Cyrus Hazari sought an emergency court order based on a tax-delinquency sale notice sent by Santa Clara County.
The court said it was unclear whether Hazari’s complaint alleged facts related to his tax deficiency. The court also said Hazari had not shown the required factors for emergency relief, including that he was likely to succeed on his claims.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied the temporary restraining order without prejudice to Hazari filing a motion for a preliminary injunction. She also denied as moot Hazari’s separately filed request for a disability accommodation.
The detailed version
- Hazari v. County of Santa Clara · No. 5:19-cv-04392
- Beth Freeman
- June 28, 2021
Background
Cyrus Hazari moved for a temporary restraining order based on a tax-delinquency sale notice sent by the County of Santa Clara. The opinion does not explain the underlying tax deficiency or describe the other defendants beyond the County and the defendants identified in the case caption.
Court’s analysis
The court stated that it was not clear whether Hazari’s complaint alleged facts concerning his tax deficiency. The court also found that Hazari had not shown the factors required for a temporary restraining order under Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, including a likelihood of success on the merits of his claims.
Rulings
The court denied Hazari’s motion for a temporary restraining order without prejudice to filing a motion for a preliminary injunction. The court separately denied as moot Hazari’s concurrently filed motion for a disability accommodation, which requested that the temporary-restraining-order motion be heard without an appearance.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.