Comfort

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Currently before the Court is Plaintiffs Ray Comfort and Emeal Zwyane (“Plaintiffs”) motion for a preliminary injunction. Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Central District Local Rule 7-15, this Court took the motion under submission. After considering the materials filed in this matter, the Court now FINDS AND RULES AS FOLLOWS:

In order to show that a preliminary injunction is appropriate, Plaintiffs must demonstrate either a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable harm, or that serious questions are raised and that the balance of hardships tips in their favor. A & M Records v. Natpster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1013 (9th Cir.2001). These two alternatives represent extremes of one continuum, rather than separate tests. Sun Microsystems, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 188 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir.1999).

In order to determine whether Plaintiffs can demonstrate a probability of success on the merits of their First Amendment claim, the Court must begin its inquiry by determining the nature of the relevant forum, in this case, the grounds of the Bellflower…