Opinion
CASE NO. C11-5350BHS
08-22-2011
CHASSIDY F. LUCAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JOE AND DEBORAH CAMACHO, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS
This matter comes before the Court on Chassidy F. Lucas, Bianca Lucas and CB Stormwater, LLC's ("Plaintiffs") motion for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. 12) and Defendants George and Ali Parker's ("the Parkers") motion for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. 24). The Court has reviewed the briefs filed in support of and in opposition to the motions and the remainder of the file and hereby denies the motions for the reasons stated herein.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 5, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants Joe and Deborah Camacho, the Parkers, and Angela Stephenson alleging various violations of intellectual property rights. Dkt. 1. Plaintiffs request, among other things, permanent injunctive relief. Id.
Defendants Joe Camacho, Deborah Camacho, and Angela Stephenson refer to themselves as the "Camacho Defendants." Dkt. 16 at 1. The Court will also use this reference.
On June 16, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a seventy-one-page motion for preliminary injunction. Dkt. 12. On July 1, 2011, all of the Defendants responded in separate briefs. See Dkts. 16 & 21. Plaintiffs did not reply.
On July 8, 2011, the Parkers filed a motion for preliminary injunction. Dkt. 24. Plaintiffs responded that same day. Dkt. 28. The Parkers did not reply.
On August 12, 2011, Plaintiffs submitted a thirty-page brief as evidence in support of their motion for preliminary injunction. Dkt. 48.
II. DISCUSSION
As a threshold matter, Plaintiffs' submissions are disorganized, incomprehensible, and violate many of the procedural rules regarding pleadings allowed, forms of motions, and formatting requirements. Plaintiffs are hereby advised that failure to follow these procedural rules alone is a ground for denial of any motion submitted to the Court. Plaintiffs can find the Local Civil Rules of this district on the Court's website at: http://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/referencematerials/localrules.htm. A. Preliminary Injunction Standard The court may issue a preliminary injunction where a party establishes (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, that (2) it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that (3) the balance of hardships tips in its favor, and (4) that the public interest favors an injunction. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell 632 F.3d 1127, 1137-38 (9th Cir. 2011); Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 374 (2008). A party can also satisfy the first and third elements of the test by raising serious questions going to the merits of its case and a balance of hardships that tips sharply in its favor. Alliance, 632 F.3d at 1137-38.
B. Plaintiffs' Motion
Plaintiffs have submitted an unorganized document that consists of multiple exhibits interspersed with factual arguments. See Dkt. 12. On page sixty-nine, Plaintiffs request preliminary injunctive relief to apparently prevent the Camacho Defendants from making or selling materials that violate Plaintiffs' intellectual property rights. Id. at 69. The Camacho Defendants assert that it "is impossible to understand what the basis for [Plaintiffs'] entire case against [them] actually consists of - either factually or legally," and they request that the Court deny the motion for preliminary injunction because Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden. Dkt. 16 at 9. The Court agrees with the Camacho Defendants to the extent that Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden under the standard set forth above. Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiffs' motion.
C. The Parkers' Motion
The Parkers request that the Court enter an order barring Plaintiffs from contacting the Parkers, their family, their customers, or any distributors. Dkt. 24 at 4. The Parkers appear to request a no-contact order, which is beyond the scope of this lawsuit and is relief more appropriately requested from a state court. Therefore, the Court denies the Parkers' motion.
III. ORDER
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs' (Dkt. 12) and the Parkers' (Dkt. 24) motions for preliminary injunctions are DENIED.
BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge