Filed: Jan. 17, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 17, 2020
Summary: PARTE PETITION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION Re: Dkt. No. 7 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY , Magistrate Judge . Anthony L. Williams sued his prospective employer American Airlines, Inc. in California state court asserting claims for race and age discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. (Dkt. No. 1-1, Ex. A.) 1 Defendant removed the action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332(a), 1441. 2 (Dkt. No. 1.) Now before the Court is Plaint
Summary: PARTE PETITION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION Re: Dkt. No. 7 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY , Magistrate Judge . Anthony L. Williams sued his prospective employer American Airlines, Inc. in California state court asserting claims for race and age discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. (Dkt. No. 1-1, Ex. A.) 1 Defendant removed the action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332(a), 1441. 2 (Dkt. No. 1.) Now before the Court is Plainti..
More
PARTE PETITION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Re: Dkt. No. 7
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY, Magistrate Judge.
Anthony L. Williams sued his prospective employer American Airlines, Inc. in California state court asserting claims for race and age discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. (Dkt. No. 1-1, Ex. A.)1 Defendant removed the action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a), 1441.2 (Dkt. No. 1.) Now before the Court is Plaintiff's "Ex Parte Petition for Permanent Injunction." (Dkt. No. 7.) The petition is procedurally improper. Civil Local Rule 7-10, Ex Parte Motions, provides:
Unless otherwise ordered by the assigned Judge, a party may file an ex parte motion, that is, a motion filed without notice to opposing party, only if a statute, Federal Rule, local rule or Standing Order authorizes the filing of an ex parte motion in the circumstances and the party has complied with the applicable provisions allowing the party to approach the Court on an ex parte basis. The motion must include a citation to the statute, rule or order which permits the use of an ex parte motion to obtain the relief sought.
Civ. L.R. 7-10. Plaintiff's petition does not "include a citation to the statute, rule or order which permits the use of an ex parte motion to obtain the relief sought," as required. (See generally Dkt. No. 7.) On those grounds alone the Court denies the petition.
Further, to the extent Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction his petition is premature because "permanent injunctions are issued at the conclusion of a case after an adjudication on the merits." See AMI Builders, Inc. v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corp., No. CV 19-5677 PSG (PJWx), 2019 WL 4221389, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2019) (denying as "premature" an ex parte application for a permanent injunction and construing application "as one for a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order" ("TRO")). If the Court were to construe Plaintiff's request as one for a preliminary injunction or TRO, it still fails.
The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is "substantially identical" to the standard for issuing a preliminary injunction. Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). "Under the original Winter standard, a party must show `that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.'" All. for the Wild Rockies v. Pena, 865 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). "Under the `sliding scale' variant of the Winter standard, if a plaintiff can only show that there are serious questions going to the merits—a lesser showing than likelihood of success on the merits—then a preliminary injunction may still issue if the balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff's favor, and the other two Winter factors are satisfied." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Here, Plaintiff's petition fails under either standard because he is challenging the timeliness of Defendant's removal and does not address the underlying merits of his case.3 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's petition.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
