The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING EX PARTE MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff the Hamline Community Gardens', Karen McCreddin's, and Ann Charlotte Joseph's (collectively "Plaintiffs") ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order 17 ("TRO") seeking to enjoin Defendant City of San Jose (the "City") from "making any changes to 18 the operations, rules or regulations governing the Hamline Community Garden for the garden year 19 2012 or until the court rules on" Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief. Ex Parte TRO Motion at 20 1, ECF No. 2. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' ex parte motion for a TRO is DENIED.
I.RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Karen McCreddin and Ann Charlotte Joseph are gardeners at the Hamline Community
Garden, a twenty six plot garden operated in agreement with City for the last thirty-one years. 24
Compl. 1. Plaintiffs' complaint arises out of the City's decision on or about November 22, 2011, 25 to implement new rules and regulations governing the garden. Compl. 6. According to Plaintiffs, 26 the City seeks to "tak[e] over the garden, rais[e] fees by 42%, and oust one third of the 27 community members in good standing." Compl. 1.
assessing a fee and from evicting any of the present garden members. Compl. 10.*fn1 Plaintiffs seek 3 relief under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; 4 the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.; and California Proposition 218. 5
Plaintiffs allege that new rules and regulations governing the community gardens on February 1, 2012, will result in the eviction of eight of the twenty six gardeners. Mot. 1. Plaintiffs 8 also allege that a 42% increase in fees will force a ninth gardener "to pull his plants and move to a 9 smaller location as he will no longer be able to afford his plot . . . ." Id. 10 was promised continued tenancy and "a gardener could only be evicted for poor stewardship of the land and or poor citizenship within the community." Id. Plaintiffs allege that under the new rules, 13 a gardener must agree that the city can evict the gardener "at any time without reason or repayment 14 of fees or other expenses that the gardener may have incurred for their completely unprotected 15 harvest." Id. at 2. 16
Plaintiffs allege that the new rules and regulations "break the trust between the gardeners 17 and the city," and that this breach of trust has already resulted in fewer winter harvests. Id. at 1-2.
20 injunction. Brown Jordan Int'l, Inc. v. Mind's Eye Interiors, Inc., 236 F. Supp. 2d 1152, 1154 (D. 21
(N.D. Cal. 1995). "A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to 23 succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary 24 relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest."
Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 374 (2008). The party seeking the 26 injunction bears the burden of proving these elements. Klein v. City of San Clemente, 584 F. 3d 27 28
Plaintiffs filed a complaint on January 30, 2012, seeking an order ...