Erisat-Eritrean Satellite Television v. Henok Tekle Gebrekidan

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ? CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WESTERN DIVISION 11 12 | ERISAT-ERITREAN SATELLITE Case No. CV 24-1121-DMG (AJRx) 13 |PPEEVISION, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 14 Plaintiff, 15 V. 16 |ERISATFORJUSTICE, 17 Defendants. 18 19 This matter came before the Court on Plaintiff Erisat-Eritrean Satellite Television’s (“EEST’’) Motion for Preliminary Injunction. [Doc. #2 (“MPI’”).] Neither 71 Defendant Henok Tekle Gebrekidan nor Erisat for Justice entered an appearance in the 22 case, nor did they file any Opposition to the MPI. The Court has duly considered 23 EEST’s briefs, evidence, and argument, and has granted the MPI. 24 The Court has found that issuance of a preliminary injunction is warranted. EEST 25 || has demonstrated that the law and facts clearly favor its position on its conversion claim 26 || and it is likely to suffer irreparable injury in the absence of a preliminary injunction. 27 || See Order re MPI at 4—5 (citing Winter v. Nat.…