UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 2, 2009
RANDALL STEVENS, ET AL., PLAINTIFF,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Morrison C. England, Jr. United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Motion for Preliminary Injunction ("Application"). For the following reasons, Plaintiff's Application is denied.
Certain prerequisites must be satisfied prior to issuance of a temporary restraining order. See Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974) (stating that the purpose of a TRO is "preserving the status quo and preventing irreparable harm just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing [on the preliminary injunction application], and no longer"). In order to warrant issuance of such relief, Plaintiffs must demonstrate either:
1) a combination of probable success on the merits and a likelihood of irreparable injury; or 2) that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in favor of granting the requested injunction. Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832, 839-40 (9th Cir. 2001); Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 129 S.Ct. 365, 375 (2008) (likelihood rather than possibility of success on the merits required for issuance of preliminary injunctive relief). These two alternatives represent two points on a sliding scale, pursuant to which the required degree of irreparable harm increases or decreases in inverse correlation to the probability of success on the merits. Roe v. Anderson, 134F.3d 1400, 1402 (9th Cir. 1998); United States v. Nutri-cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 397 (9th Cir. 1992).
In this case, Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently show the requisite immediacy of any alleged irreparable harm. Moreover, Plaintiff has not adequately shown that the notice requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 have been met. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Application for Temporary Restraining Order And/Or Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 5) is DENIED. Any future request for Preliminary Injunction will be considered only after proper service on all parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.