Rosenbaum

MEMORANDUM *

The plaintiffs, who preach and play amplified music in San Francisco’s public spaces, brought this action against various city officials to enjoin them from continuing to disrupt their “outdoor Christian rallies” through the unconstitutional application of the city’s noise ordinances. The district court entered summary judgment for the defendants on the ground that, whether or not the plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights had been violated, they were not entitled to equitable relief. We reverse.

*690 I.

Two related procedural barriers must be surmounted before federal courts may grant injunctive relief. First, the plaintiffs must demonstrate that they have standing to bring the action, and second, they must demonstrate that equitable relief is appropriate because without it they will suffer irreparable injury. See City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101-03 , 103 S.Ct. 1660 , 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983); Hodgers-Durgin v. De La Vina, 199 F.3d 1037,1042 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc).

Unlike in Lyons , where the plaintiff “was [not] likely to suffer future injury,” 461 U.S. at 105 , in this case, for purposes of our standing inquiry, we conclude that it is…

dissenting.

I would affirm for reasons stated by the district court.