Thomas v. Denny's Restaurant, Corp., No. 1:2015cv01113 - Document 6 (E.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER DENYING 5 Request for Temporary Restraining Order, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 8/6/2015. (Marrujo, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JERMANY DEVON THOMAS, Plaintiff, 10 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (Doc. 5) v. 11 12 1:15-cv-001113 LJO SKO DENNY’S RESTAURANT, CORP., et al., Defendants. 13 14 15 16 17 18 Jermany Devon Thomas (“Plaintiff”), who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action on July 20, 2015 against Denny’s Restaurant, Corp. (“Denny’s” or “Defendant”). Doc. 1. On August 3, 2015, the Court received a document entitled “Complaint for Temporary Restraining Order, Prohibitory and Permanent Injunctions, and Damages.” Doc. 5. The August 3, 2015 filing appears to 19 concern a separate case Plaintiff filed in this District on June 1, 2015, Jermany Devon Thomas v. Fresno 20 City College, et al., 1:15-cv-00826 LJO BAM, as the document only references Fresno City College, not 21 22 Denny’s. See Doc. 5. To the extent this document may be construed as being directed at this case (and therefore at Denny’s) and interpreted as a motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”), any such 23 motion is DENIED for the reasons set forth below, as the requirements for a TRO have not been 24 established. 25 1 A party seeking preliminary injunctive relief, such as a TRO, “must establish that he is likely to 1 2 succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, 3 that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. 4 Nat. Res. Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citations omitted). In addition, a motion for a 5 TRO is also subject to Eastern District of California Local Rule 231, which provides, among other 6 things: 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 In considering a motion for a temporary restraining order, the Court will consider whether the applicant could have sought relief by motion for preliminary injunction at an earlier date without the necessity for seeking last-minute relief by motion for temporary restraining order. Should the Court find that the applicant unduly delayed in seeking injunctive relief, the Court may conclude that the delay constitutes laches or contradicts the applicant's allegations of irreparable injury and may deny the motion solely on either ground. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 231(b). In addition, the moving party is required to provide, among other things “a brief on all relevant legal issues presented by the motion;” and “an affidavit in support of the existence of an irreparable injury.” E.D. Cal. Local rule 231(c). Although the factual underpinnings of Plaintiff’s allegations are not entirely clear, the Complaint in this case appears to allege that Plaintiff was an employee of Denny’s and that on January 17, 2015 16 several individuals, possibly co-workers of Plaintiff, made oral statements to entering guests about 17 Plaintiff that plaintiff found offensive and believes were unlawful. Doc. 1 at 3-4. Plaintiff also claims to 18 19 have filed a formal complaint with his superiors that Denny’s intentionally discriminated against him on the basis of his alleged disability, Asperger’s Syndrome. Doc. 1 at 3. The exact nature of the 20 discrimination is unclear. 21 However, nowhere in either the Complaint or his August 3, 2015 filing does Plaintiff explain 22 how he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims; how the extraordinary relief of a TRO will 23 prevent irreparable injury to him; or why, even assuming, arguendo, irreparable injury is ongoing, he 24 could not have sought emergency relief at an earlier date, particularly in light of the fact that the only 25 2 1 date mentioned in the Complaint is January 17, 2015, more than six months ago. Therefore, the Court 2 finds no basis for the issuance of a TRO. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 3 4 To the extent Plaintiff’s August 3, 2015 filing may be construed as a request for a TRO, any such 5 motion is DENIED. The Magistrate Judge shall proceed to screen the complaint according to normal 6 procedures applicable to in forma pauperis cases. 7 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill August 6, 2015 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
