United KP Freedom Alliance v. Kaiser Permanente

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED KP FREEDOM ALLIANCE, et Case No. 21-cv-07894-VC al.,

Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

v. ORDER AND MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

KAISER PERMANENTE,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 27, 35 Defendant.

The plaintiffs challenge the mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy of their employer, Kaiser Permanente. Because the plaintiffs have not met any of the requirements for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order, their requests for emergency relief are denied.1 See Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 1. The plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood (or even a possibility) of success on their arguments under the United States Constitution because Kaiser is not a state actor. The source of the harm that the plaintiffs complain of is a decision by a private employer to impose conditions on employment. The policy was voluntarily adopted by a private party and is not enforced by any form of coercive state action. There is therefore no reasonable argument that Kaiser’s actions can be “fairly attributable” to the state.…