.3The panel held that the plaintiff established the likelihoodthat irreparable harm would result if an injunction did notissue because she was subject to death threats and took actionas soon as she began receiving the threats. The plaintiff alsoestablished sufficient causal connection between theinfringement of her copyright and the harm she alleged.The panel also held that the balance of the equities andthe public interest weighed in favor of injunctive relief.Dissenting, Judge N.R. Smith wrote that the facts and lawdid not clearly favor issuing a mandatory preliminaryinjunction to the plaintiff. He wrote that the plaintiff did notestablish a likelihood that she had a copyrightable interest inher acting performance, nor did she clearly show that the performance was not a work made for hire. In addition, thedistrict court did not abuse its discretion in its ruling onirreparable harm, and the balance of the equities and the public interest did not favor the issuance of a preliminaryinjunction.
M. Cris Armenta (argued), The Armenta Law Firm APC, LosAngeles, California and Credence Sol, Chauvigng, France,for Plaintiff-Appellant.Timothy L. Alger (argued) and Sunita Bali, Perkins CoieLLP, Palo Alto, California, for Defendants-Appellees.