Williams v. U.S. Airways American Airlines, Inc. ( 2020 )

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 ANTHONY L. WILLIAMS, Case No. 19-cv-08434-JSC 6 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S EX 7 v. PARTE PETITION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION 8 U.S. AIRWAYS AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Re: Dkt. No. 7 9 Defendant. 10 11 Anthony L. Williams sued his prospective employer American Airlines, Inc. in California 12 state court asserting claims for race and age discrimination under the California Fair Employment 13 and Housing Act. (Dkt. No. 1-1, Ex. A.)1 Defendant removed the action to federal court based on 14 diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a), 1441.2 (Dkt. No. 1.) Now before the 15 Court is Plaintiff’s “Ex Parte Petition for Permanent Injunction.” (Dkt. No. 7.) The petition is 16 procedurally improper. Civil Local Rule 7-10, Ex Parte Motions, provides: 17 Unless otherwise ordered by the assigned Judge, a party may file an ex parte motion, that is, a motion filed without notice to opposing 18 party, only if a statute, Federal Rule, local rule or Standing Order authorizes the filing of an ex parte motion in the circumstances and 19 the party has complied with the applicable provisions allowing the party to approach the Court on an ex parte basis. The motion must 20 include a citation to the statute, rule or order which permits the use of an ex parte motion to obtain the relief sought. 21 Civ. L.R. 7-10. Plaintiff’s petition does not “include a citation to the statute, rule or order which 22 permits the use of an ex parte motion to obtain the relief sought,” as required. (See generally Dkt. 23 No. 7.) On those grounds alone the Court denies the petition. 24 Further, to the extent Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction his petition is premature 25 26 1 Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the 27 ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents. 1 because “permanent injunctions are issued at the conclusion of a case after an adjudication on the 2 merits.” See AMI Builders, Inc. v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corp., No. CV 19-5677 PSG (PJWx), 3 2019 WL 42213839, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2019) (denying as “premature” an ex parte 4 || application for a permanent injunction and construing application “as one for a preliminary 5 || injunction or a temporary restraining order” (“TRO”)). If the Court were to construe Plaintiffs 6 request as one for a preliminary injunction or TRO, it still fails. 7 The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is “substantially identical” to the 8 standard for issuing a preliminary injunction. Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D, Brush & 9 Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). “Under the original Winter standard, a party must 10 || show ‘that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the 11 absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is 12 in the public interest.’” AJl. for the Wild Rockies v. Pena, 865 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 2017) 13 (quoting Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). “Under the ‘sliding scale’ 14 || variant of the Winter standard, if a plaintiff can only show that there are serious questions going to 3 15 the merits—a lesser showing than likelihood of success on the merits—then a preliminary a 16 || tnyjunction may still issue if the balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiffs favor, and the 3 17 other two Winter factors are satisfied.” /d. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 18 Here, Plaintiffs petition fails under either standard because he is challenging the 19 || timeliness of Defendant’s removal and does not address the underlying merits of his case. 20 || Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's petition. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 || Dated: January 17, 2020 23 ACQ@UELINE SCOTT CORLE 25 United States Magistrate Judge 26 07 3 The removal papers demonstrate that Defendant was properly served with the underlying state court complaint on November 27, 2019. (See Dkt. No. 1-6, Ex. C at 153-54.) Defendant timely 2g || removed the case to federal court 30 days later on December 27, 2019, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1446(b)(1). (See Dkt. No. 1.) 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 ANTHONY L. WILLIAMS, 7 Case No. 19-cv-08434-JSC Plaintiff, 8 9 Vv. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE U.S. AIRWAYS AMERICAN AIRLINES, 10 || INC., 11 Defendant. 12 . . I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 13 = District Court, Northern District of California. 14 That on January 17, 2020, SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by 15 placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 16 depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 17 = receptacle located in the Clerk's office. Z 18 19 Anthony L. Williams 2811 Nicol Avenue #6 20 || Oakland, CA 94602 21 22 Dated: January 17, 2020 23 24 Susan Y. Soong 25 Clerk, United States District Court 26 27 By: __ 28 Ada Means, Deputy Clerk to the Honorable JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY