Injunction - Federal court is your only remedy sometimes

[admin]

We have been to court many times on these issues. Federal court is often your only real remedy.

State court judges seem to rule with the city on everything. And remember this!!!! If you take it to state court first, you are screwed. Most likely you are then mandated to finish out your case in state court, including appeals, before going to federal court. So, if you have some kind of a violation that can be heard in federal court, take it up to federal court like this man did. As the person filing the complaint you are the master of your universe. You file in State Court you finish in state court. All you need to do is have 1 federal issue to file in federal court. *Federal court is strict and structured, and better for those who have some experience at litigation.

Davis v. City of Santa Rosa, Dist. Court, ND California 2026

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case ... s_ylo=2026

"Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, the Court may issue a TRO to enjoin conduct pending a hearing on a preliminary injunction. See Fed. R. Civ. P 65(b). The Court may issue a TRO where the plaintiff has established: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in Plaintiff's favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). Under the Ninth Circuit's sliding scale approach, a plaintiff may alternatively establish that there are "serious questions going to the merits" if "a hardship balance [also] tips sharply towards the plaintiff," and the other Winter factors are satisfied. See All. For the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2011)."