Case 3:22-cv-01995-EMC Document 22 Filed 04/21/22 Page 1 of 3

1 Arthur Gaus SBN #289560

KAUFMAN DOLOWICH & VOLUCK, LLP
2 425 California Street, Suite 2100
San Francisco, California 94104
3 Telephone: (415) 926-7600
Facsimile: (415) 926-7601
4 E-mail: agaus@kdvlaw.com
5 MARY WAGNER, Cal. Bar No. 167214
CITY ATTORNEY FOR CITY OF SAUSALITO
6 Sausalito City Hall 420 Litho Street Sausalito, CA 94965
E-mail: mwagner@bwslaw.com
7
Attorney for Defendant
8 CITY OF SAUSALITO and STACIE GREGORY
9

10 UNITED STATES DISRICT COURT

11 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
CASE NO. 3:22-cv-01995-EMC
13 ARTHUR BRUCE,
14 DEFENDANT CITY OF SAUSALITO’S
Plaintiff, OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S
15
v. APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
16
CITY OF SAUSALITO, et al.,
17
Action Filed: March 29, 2022
Defendants. Trial Date: None set.
18

19

20 I. INTRODUCTION
21 Pursuant to this Court’s April 14, 2022 Order, Defendant City of Sausalito (“Defendant”)
22 submits the following Opposition to Plaintiff Arthur Bruce’s (“Plaintiff”) Application for preliminary
23 injunction. The relief requested by both Plaintiff’s Application for Temporary Restraining Order [ECF
24
Dkt No. 4] and the underlying Complaint [ECF Dkt No. 1] has been provided. Accordingly, both the
25
preliminary injunction and the underlying Complaint are moot; a preliminary injunction should not
26
issue.
27

28

1.
DEFENDANT CITY OF SAUSALITO’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S
APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
 Case 3:22-cv-01995-EMC Document 22 Filed 04/21/22 Page 2 of 3

1 II. BACKGROUND
2 Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed March 29, 2022. The Complaint alleges a battery of civil rights
3 violations against all Defendants relating to Plaintiff’s experience at the homeless encampment at
4 Marinship Park in Sausalito (“the Marinship Encampment”). Factually, Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges
5 that he was denied the use of an M class parking permit, which would permit him to park overnight at
6 Marinship Park. [ECF Dkt No. 1, p. 5, Section III.A] In terms of relief, the Complaint seeks an
7
injunction permitting Plaintiff to park in his car between the hours of 2:00 AM and 6:00 AM. [ECF
8
Dkt No 1, Section V]
9
Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for TRO (“TRO Application”) was filed the same day. Like
10
the underlying Complaint, the TRO Application seeks an order allowing Plaintiff to park in the
11
parking lot at Marinship Park and sleep in his vehicle without threat of citation. [ECF Dkt No. 4-2, p.
12
12] Plaintiff also seeks 24 hour access to the bathroom facilities at Marinship Park.
13
On April 7, 2022, the Parties appeared before the Court with respect to the TRO application.
14
[ECF Dkt No. 17] At the April 7 hearing, the Court noted City of Sausalito’s intent to issue a M class
15
parking permit and that the restrooms are currently open 24 hours per day and referred the matter to
16
Judge Robert M. Illman for an April 12, 2022 settlement conference. [Id.]
17
At the April 12, 2022 settlement conference, the Parties agreed that the issuance of an M class
18
parking permit would resolve the dispute that provided the basis for Plaintiff’s TRO Application.
19
[ECF Dkt. No 16] Plaintiff received his M class parking permit on April 12, 2022. Pursuant to the
20
Court’s order with respect to Plaintiff’s TRO Application, Defendants will not cite Plaintiff for
21
sleeping in his vehicle when he has no other place to stay.
22

23
III. A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE; THE CASE IS MOOT

24
Plaintiff’s TRO Application seeks a M class parking permit, authorization to sleep in his car

25 when he has no other place to go and 24-hour access to the bathrooms at Marinship Park. As it

26 presently stands, it is undisputed that Plaintiff has been issued a M class parking permit, will not be

27 subject to citation for sleeping in his car and has unrestricted, 24-hour access to the bathrooms at

28 Marinship Park.
2.
DEFENDANT CITY OF SAUSALITO’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S
APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
 Case 3:22-cv-01995-EMC Document 22 Filed 04/21/22 Page 3 of 3

1 Furthermore, as both the Complaint and the TRO Application seek identical relief, the dispute
2 that forms the basis of the Complaint is also moot.
3 In sum, Plaintiff has received all relief requested by both the TRO Application and the
4 underlying Complaint. The Court should decline to issue a preliminary injunction and anticipate a
5 dismissal motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12.
6 IV. CONCLUSION
7
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff has received all relief requested by the TRO Application and
8
the dispute that provides the basis for Plaintiff’s request for injunctive has been resolved.
9

10 Dated: April 21, 2022 KAUFMAN DOLOWICH & VOLUCK, LLP

11 /s/ Arthur S. Gaus

12
ARTHUR S. GAUS
Attorneys for Defendants
13 CITY OF SAUSALITO, et al.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3.
DEFENDANT CITY OF SAUSALITO’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S
APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION