Pavone v. Cardona

Pavone v. Cardona

Opinion

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

[ECF NOS. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12]

Plaintiff Benjamin Pavone has filed an Application for a Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO"). (ECF Nos. 3-12.) Plaintiff is the subject of an ongoing California State Bar disciplinary proceeding, in which a Notice of Disciplinary Charges was filed against him on August 11, 2020. (ECF No. 7-4.) In his Application for a TRO, Plaintiff argues that "this Court should assume jurisdiction over this matter and temporarily enjoin the pending State Bar proceedings to review [various] serious constitutional defects [of the California State Bar disciplinary system]." (ECF No. 3 at 26.)

"The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is identical to the standard for issuing a preliminary injunction." Lockheed Missile & Space Co., Inc. v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 887 F. Supp. 1320, 1323 (N.D. Cal. 1995); see also Stuhlbarg Intern. Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brushy and Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) (standards for issuing a TRO are "substantially identical" to those for issuing a preliminary injunction). A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish: (1) a likelihood of success [*2]  on the merits; (2) a likelihood that plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S. Ct. 365, 172 L. Ed. 2d 249 (2008).

Defendants oppose Plaintiff's Application for a TRO, arguing that: (1) this district is not the proper venue, and (2) the Court must abstain from exercising jurisdiction under the Younger doctrine. (ECF No. 19.) The Court held a hearing on November 8, 2021. (ECF No. 22.)

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.