against the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA"), Jay Clayton, in his official capacity as Chairman of the SEC, William Barr, in his official capacity as the United States Attorney General, and Robert W. Cook, in his official capacity as President and Chief Executive Officer of FINRA. (Case No. 18cv1910-GPC(MDD), Dkt. No. 1.) In the complaint, Plaintiff alleged improper FINRA investigation of his Investor Complaint, improper SEC review of FINRA's investigation as well as inconsistent statements/advisements by FINRA and the SEC concerning his attempts to obtain a ruling of ineligibility for arbitration and seeking to return the arbitrable issues back to this Court. (Id.) On May 26, 2020, and June 17, 2020, the Court granted all Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Id., Dkt. Nos. 29, 35.) In the May 26, 2020 order, the Court noted that Plaintiff was attempting to undermine the Court's prior order compelling arbitration and explained that "[o]nce the arbitration panel issues its decision, Plaintiff may seek to vacate or confirm the arbitration award." (Id., Dkt. No. 29 at 19.3 )

[F]irst, he argues that he did not agree to participate in any virtual Zoom hearing and due to his lack of experience and unfamiliarity in using the Zoom platform, he will be at an extreme disadvantage against an attorney who has experience in the Zoom medium. (Id. at 9.) Second, he seeks to enjoin FINRA's evidentiary hearing because of numerous rulings that favor Schwab Defendants demonstrating collusion and bias against him. (See id. at 16-79.) In the conclusion, he also asks, "[i]f permitted, Plaintiff moves [the] Court to reverse the FINRA Panel's denial of Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss, and remand this case back to this Court." (Id. at 81.) Schwab Defendants oppose arguing that, under Ninth Circuit precedent, courts should not intervene in pending arbitration. 

Here, Plaintiff seeks an extraordinary relief of a temporary restraining order enjoining a pending arbitration. However, Plaintiff does not present evidence, arguments or legal authority demonstrating an extreme case that warrants the Court's intervention in a pending arbitration. At most, Plaintiff disagrees with a number of procedural decisions concerning the arbitration which is not subject to judicial scrutiny during the arbitration. See Lagstein v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, 607 F.3d 634, 643 (9th Cir. 2010) ("In the absence of an express agreement to the contrary, procedural questions are submitted to the arbitrator, either explicitly or implicitly, along with the merits of the dispute.") 

For example, Plaintiff argues that he never agreed to a Zoom hearing and it would be prejudicial since he is not familiar with the platform. Yet, the transcript of the prehearing conference recording of March 26, 2021 shows Plaintiff was aware and agreed to the evidentiary hearing on June 28-30, 2021, presumably by Zoom. (Dkt. No. 42-4, Garrett Decl., Ex. H.) Plaintiff had sought a postponement of the evidentiary hearing with the Director of FINRA Dispute Resolution but his request for postponement was denied on June 22, 2021 with the right to re-raise the issue with the arbitration panel for final decision. (Id., Ex. J.) Further, Plaintiff agreed to be bound by FINRA's rules and procedures relating to the arbitration. (Dkt. No. 42-2, Garrett Decl., Ex. A.) FINRA Rule 12213(a)4 gives FINRA the authority to determine the hearing location. See Legaspy v. Fin. Indus. Regulatory Auth., Inc., Case No. 20 C 4700, 2020 WL 4696818, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 13, 2020) (denying TRO to enjoin a scheduled remote Zoom hearing). 

In addition, Plaintiff disagrees with a number of procedural rulings concerning scheduling, discovery and eligibility without demonstrating a legal or factual basis of an "extreme case[]" for the Court to intervene in a pending arbitration. (See Dkt. No. 40 at 16-63.) Further, Plaintiff's general claim without specific facts of bias by the arbitrator or collusion between the arbitrator and Schwab Defendants, (see id. at 63-77), are also insufficient reasons for the Court to intervene. See In re Sussex, 781 F.3d at 1073. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Moreover, even if the Court were to consider the TRO, Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the elements to support it.