Opinion
No. C03-86P
January 21, 2003
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary restraining Order. (Dkt. No. 2.) To prevail on her motion, Plaintiff has the burden on showing: (1) a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury; or (2) that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in her favor. Textile Unlimited, Inc. v. A., BMH Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 781, 786 (9th Cir. 2001); Mayo v. United States Gov. Printing Off., 839 F. Supp. 697, 699 (N.D. Cal. 1992), aff'd, 9 F.3d 1450 (9th Cir. 1993). Having reviewed the submissions by the parties, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden. Plaintiff has neither shown a probability of success on the merits nor that the balance of hardships tips in her favor. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED.
In addition to argument opposing the temporary restraining order, Defendants raise issues of jurisdiction. Specifically, Defendants suggest that this Court does not have diversity jurisdiction over the matter and that an arbitration clause of the contract divests this Court of jurisdiction. The Court will not rule on these issues at the hearing on the request for a temporary restraining order. Defendants may raise these issues by separate motion.