Summary
holding that a "plaintiff [must] make a showing on all four prongs to obtain a preliminary injunction"
Summary of this case from Prime Grp., Inc. v. DixonOpinion
No. 15-17517
08-28-2018
A WOMAN’S FRIEND PREGNANCY RESOURCE CLINIC, a California Religious Nonprofit Corporation; Alternative Women’s Center, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Xavier BECERRA, Attorney General, Attorney General, State of California, Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER
This case is back before us on remand from the United States Supreme Court. See A Woman’s Friend Pregnancy Res. Clinic v. Becerra , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S.Ct. 2711, ––– L.Ed.2d –––– (2018). In light of National Institute of Family and Life Advocates ("NIFLA") v. Becerra , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S.Ct. 2361, ––– L.Ed.2d –––– (2018), we reverse in part , vacate in part , and remand this case to the district court for further proceedings.
"A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish [1] that he is likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of the equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public interest." Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. , 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008) (citations omitted). A "plaintiff [must] make a showing on all four prongs " to obtain a preliminary injunction. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell , 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011) (emphasis added); see also Garcia v. Google, Inc. , 786 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (stating that a plaintiff "must show" all four factors before an injunction may issue (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) ). In the Ninth Circuit, a plaintiff may also obtain a preliminary injunction by showing "serious questions go[ ] to the merits" of its claims and a balance of hardships that tips "sharply" towards the plaintiff, so long as it makes a showing on the other two factors. Alliance , 632 F.3d at 1135.
In NIFLA , the Supreme Court concluded that the plaintiffs were "likely to succeed on the merits of their [free speech] challenge to the licensed notice [requirement in the California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act]." 138 S.Ct. at 2376. The same provision is at issue here. See A Woman’s Friend Pregnancy Res. Clinic , 138 S.Ct. at ––––. We therefore reverse the district court’s conclusion that A Woman’s Friend Pregnancy Resources Clinic, Crisis Pregnancy Center of Northern California, and Alternatives Women’s Center ("Plaintiffs") were not likely to succeed on the merits of their free speech claim.
The district court found Plaintiffs had raised "serious questions going to the merits" of their claims and that they were likely to suffer irreparable harm, but concluded that the balancing of the equities did not tip "sharply" in their favor and that the injunction, on free speech grounds, would not be in the public interest. A Woman’s Friend Pregnancy Res. Clinic v. Harris , 153 F.Supp.3d 1168, 1209–10, 1215–17 (E.D. Cal. 2015). The district court engaged in this alternative analysis based on its now-erroneous conclusion that Plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claim. See id. at 1214. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order on the three remaining Winter factors and remand for the district court to consider them again in light of NIFLA .
Plaintiffs-Appellants shall recover their costs on appeal from Defendants-Appellees.