United States District Court, C.D. California
BROWN UNIVERSITY In Providence in the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Plaintiff,
GARY ZIMET, Defendant.
AMENDED PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
H. WU, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
University (“Plaintiff”) has sued Gary Zimet
(“Defendant”) in connection with Zimet's
possession of, and plan to auction off, the Student File of
John F. Kennedy, Jr. (“JFK, Jr.”), that was
compiled while he was an applicant and student at the
University. (Docket Nos. 1-2.) On October 19, 2017, Plaintiff
applied for a temporary restraining order to prevent
Defendant from “selling, transferring or otherwise
alienating any document in his possession, custody, or
control that was once owned by Brown University, ”
including the JFK, Jr. Student File. (Docket Nos. 11-17.) The
Court granted the request, finding Plaintiff had satisfied
both the traditional injunctive relief test and the Ninth
Circuit's alternative “sliding scale” test.
(Docket Nos. 18-19.)
Court set a briefing schedule and a hearing to determine
whether the temporary restraining order should be converted
into a preliminary injunction. (Docket No. 19.) Plaintiff
served Defendant with the Summons and Complaint (and other
materials, including the temporary restraining order and
materials related thereto) on October 22, 2017. (Docket No.
20.) Defendant filed an opposition brief. (Docket No. 21.)
Plaintiff filed a reply brief and evidentiary objections.
(Docket Nos. 23-24.) On November 2, 2017, following argument
of counsel, the Court granted Plaintiff's request for
preliminary injunction for the reasons stated in its
tentative ruling which was adopted as the Court's final
ruling. (Docket No. 25.)
to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65 and Local Rule 65, and after consideration
of the Verified Complaint, Brown University's Application
for Preliminary Injunction, and all other papers filed
herein, it appears to the satisfaction of the Court that:
(1) The Summons, Complaint, Temporary Restraining Order, and
other pleadings and papers were properly served on Defendant.
(2) This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of
this case, and personal jurisdiction over Defendant.
(3) Venue lies properly with this Court.
(4) The Complaint states a claim upon which relief can be
granted, and Plaintiff has the authority to seek the relief
it has requested.
(5) Plaintiff is likely to prevail on the merits of this
(6) The documents at issue are unique and bear both intrinsic
and historical value.
(7) There is a substantial likelihood that the documents will
be transferred, sold or otherwise disposed of before the
Court has an opportunity to hear evidence at a trial on the
merits of ownership unless the Court enters the Injunctive
relief Plaintiff seeks.
(8) If that happens, Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm
that will not be capable of compensation by simple money
(9) Defendant will not be harmed if the status quo
is maintained until the trial on the ...