Qureshi v. Autoreturn Commercial Solutions, LLC
3:17-cv-06901
N.D. Cal.Dec 5, 2017Background
- Petitioner Rick Qureshi filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a verified petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to stop Autoreturn Commercial Solutions, LLC from selling his vehicle.
- Autoreturn is a private towing company contracted by the San Francisco Police Department and Municipal Transportation Authority.
- The sale of the vehicle was scheduled for December 6, 2017; Qureshi filed for emergency relief (construed as a TRO) on December 4, 2017.
- The district court granted Qureshi’s IFP application but denied emergency injunctive relief and dismissed the mandamus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
- The court concluded mandamus is not available against a private entity or local municipality under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 and found Qureshi failed to show likely irreparable harm.
- Dismissal was without prejudice and Qureshi was given leave to amend by December 19, 2017.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TRO should issue to halt vehicle sale | Qureshi asked court to enjoin sale to prevent deprivation of property and asserted due process violation | Autoreturn proceeded under contractual towing authority; implicit defense that TRO not warranted | Denied — plaintiff failed to show likelihood of success or irreparable harm |
| Whether federal mandamus lies against Autoreturn | Qureshi sought writ to compel action by Autoreturn regarding vehicle sale | Autoreturn is a private company/municipal contractor, not a federal officer or agency | Denied — § 1361 confers jurisdiction only to compel federal officers/agencies; mandamus unavailable here |
| Whether alleged economic loss constitutes irreparable harm | Qureshi argued harm from sale of vehicle justified injunctive relief | Court noted economic loss is typically reparable and not irreparable | Denied — purely economic harms generally are not irreparable |
| Whether TRO could be issued without notice | Qureshi did not show he notified Autoreturn or justify ex parte relief | Rule 65(b) requires certification of notice attempts or reasons for lack of notice | Denied additionally for failure to comply with Rule 65(b) |
Key Cases Cited
- Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976 (9th Cir.) (setting four-factor standard for TRO/preliminary injunction)
- Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir.) (alternative "serious questions" standard for injunctions)
- Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe, 794 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir.) (economic harms ordinarily are reparable and not irreparable)
- Koller v. Brown, 224 F. Supp. 3d 871 (N.D. Cal.) (observing TRO and preliminary injunction standards are the same)
- New Motor Vehicle Bd. of Cal. v. Orrin W. Fox Co., 434 U.S. 1345 (1977) (notation that TRO standard aligns with preliminary injunction standard)