Roshan v. McCauley

Background

Peyman Roshan filed an ex parte motion, meaning a request made without advance notice to the opposing party, for a temporary restraining order and an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue. He sought to stop Douglas R. McCauley, identified as the Commissioner of the California Department of Real Estate, from continuing proceedings to suspend or revoke Roshan’s real estate license. Roshan based his request on the California Supreme Court’s order suspending his license to practice law.

Court’s reasoning

The court cited Civil Local Rule 65-1(b), which requires a lawyer seeking an ex parte temporary restraining order to give notice to the opposing lawyer or party unless a judge finds good cause to excuse notice. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 also permits an order without notice only when specific facts clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury will occur before the opposing party can respond, and when the moving lawyer provides a written certification describing efforts to give notice and why notice should not be required.

The court found that Roshan offered no evidence that he had notified McCauley about the temporary-restraining-order motion. Roshan also had not provided the required written certification. The court further found that his attempts to establish immediate and irreparable harm were either too speculative or not imminent. Roshan stated that his efforts to obtain evidence concerning the California Supreme Court’s findings had been denied and that a Department of Real Estate administrative hearing was scheduled for December 4, 2023. The court concluded that Roshan had not shown that the evidence existed or clearly shown that the loss of his license was certainly impending before McCauley could respond.

Ruling

The court denied Roshan’s motion for a temporary restraining order and his request for an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue. Judge Jon S. Tigar signed the order.