United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
A. OTAKE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
September 18, 2018, pro se Plaintiff John Sitki Bade
(“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order. The Court finds this matter suitable for
disposition without a hearing pursuant to Rule 7.2(d) of the
Local Rules of Practice for the U.S. District Court for the
District of Hawaii. After careful consideration of
Plaintiff's submission and the applicable law, the Court
DENIES the Motion for the reasons set forth below.
commenced this action on May 8, 2018, asserting violations of
the Clean Water Act and UL Standards for Safety regarding gas
and carbon monoxide. According to Plaintiff, drain lines in
Kapiolani Manor, where he resides, are producing methane gas
and carbon monoxide. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
Hawaiian Properties Ltd. and/or Kapiolani Manor Association
hired Defendant Black Hawk Security LLC to “use these
resources to cause physical injury and or [sic] death to
anyone they choose.” Compl. at 20.
present Motion, Plaintiff alleges that he has suffered
immediate and irreparable injury, loss, and damages due to
retaliation by Defendant Kapiolani Manor Association and its
residents/owners, and Defendant Hawaiian Properties Ltd.
Plaintiff claims that break-ins occurred over a period of
years; threats to his life were implied; invasion
of privacy and harassment have escalated; and he has been
racially profiled due to his mother's Turkish
background. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure (“FRCP”) 65(c), Plaintiff requests $42,
000.00 “to cover the costs of repairs to the ceiling,
walls, tile flooring front door and glass windows.”
Mot. at 2. However, by its plain terms, FRCP 65(c) concerns
security to be provided by a movant, not damages awarded to a
relief is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be
awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled
to such relief.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council,
Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008); Munaf v. Geren,
553 U.S. 674, 689 (2008) (citation omitted) (“A
preliminary injunction is an ‘extraordinary and drastic
remedy.'”). The standards for issuing a temporary
restraining order and a preliminary injunction are identical.
Fleck v. CitiMortgage, Inc., No. CIV. 15-00167
JMS-BMK, 2015 WL 2188595, at *2 (D. Haw. May 8, 2015)
(quoting Brown Jordan Int'l, Inc. v. Mind's Eye
Interiors, Inc., 236 F.Supp.2d 1152, 1154 (D. Haw.
2002)). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction
must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits,
that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence
of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in
his favor, and that an injunction is in the public
interest.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 20 (citations
omitted). Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council,
Inc. requires that all elements be satisfied before a
TRO may issue. Fleck, 2015 WL 2188595 at *2.
from arguing, in conclusory fashion, that he has suffered
irreparable harm and damages, Plaintiff has not addressed any
of the foregoing elements. Because each element must be
satisfied in order to obtain injunctive relief, failure to
satisfy any element requires a denial of the Motion.
Likelihood of Success on the Merits
fails to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits.
As earlier noted, Plaintiff alleges violations of the Clean
Water Act and UL Standards for Safety regarding gas and
carbon monoxide. He claims that Kapiolani Manor drain lines
are producing methane gas and carbon monoxide and that
Defendant Black Hawk Security was hired to use unidentified
resources to cause physical injury and/or death to
individuals of their choosing. It is difficult to identify
viable legal or factual bases for Plaintiff's
allegations. Based on the Court's review of the limited
allegations presented in the Complaint, it is unlikely that
Plaintiff will succeed on the merits. Moreover, pending
before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Complaint and Request for Injunction Filed on May 8, 2018,
which raises jurisdictional questions and challenges the
sufficiency of Plaintiff's allegations. Accordingly,
Plaintiff is not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief.
Likelihood of Suffering Irreparable Harm
also fails to demonstrate that he is likely to suffer
irreparable harm, which constitutes an independently
sufficient reason to deny injunctive relief.
“Irreparable harm is traditionally defined as harm for
which there is no adequate legal remedy.” Arizona
Dream Act Coal. v. Brewer, 757 F.3d 1053, 1068 (9th Cir.
2014). A plaintiff must establish that irreparable injury is
likely absent preliminary relief. Winter,
555 U.S. at 22. The claimed harm must be both irreparable and
imminent. Mere allegations of imminent harm do not suffice;
“a plaintiff must demonstrate immediate
threatened injury as a prerequisite to preliminary injunctive
relief.” Caribbean Marine Servs. Co. v.
Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988) (citation
omitted). “Speculative injury does not constitute
irreparable injury sufficient to warrant granting a
preliminary injunction.” Id.
he baldly claims to have suffered (and continues to suffer)
irreparable harm, Plaintiff only seeks relief for purported
economic injury, which, without more, fails to support a
finding of irreparable harm. It is well established that mere
economic injury does not constitute irreparable harm because
a damage award can remedy such injury. Rent-A-Center,
Inc. v. Canyon Television & Appliance Rental, Inc.,
944 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1991). Moreover, Plaintiff's