Barajas Centeno v. City of Carlsbad

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaJanuary 24, 20223:19-cv-02098California572 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 JOSE BARAJAS CENTENO, Case No.: 3:19-cv-2098-L-DEB Plaintiff, v.

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

12 CITY OF CARLSBAD, et al., FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING Defendants. ORDER (ECF 182) 14 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order. (ECF 182). The purpose of a temporary restraining order is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). A plaintiff “must establish that [they are] likely to succeed on the merits, that [they are] likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in [their] favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Plaintiff filed the motion on behalf of himself and a non-party, Jean Wortham.1 The motion concerns allegations that…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.