Neve

(PC) Harris v. Neve

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJune 22, 20201:19-cv-01338California672 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 EARNEST S. HARRIS, Case No. 1:19-cv-01338-JLT (PC)

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

v. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

D. NEVE, (Doc. 16)

Defendant. 14-DAY DEADLINE

Clerk of the Court to Assign a District Judge

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order. (Doc. 16.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court recommends that Plaintiff’s motion be denied. I. DISCUSSION “The standard for a [temporary restraining order] is the same as for a preliminary injunction.” Rovio Entm’t Ltd. v. Royal Plush Toys, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 2d 1086, 1092 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (citing Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). A “federal court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.