P. 1
david-memdavid-mem
Ratings: (0)|Views: 87
|Likes: 0
Published by torrentfreak
See more
See less
https://www.scribd.com/doc/126549378/david-mem
07/26/2013
text
original
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MEMORANDUM
Case No.
CV 11-9437 DSF (JCx)
Date
2/19/13
Title
Alkiviades David, et al. v. CBS Interactive Inc., et al.Present: TheHonorableDALE S. FISCHER, United States District JudgeDebra PlatoNot PresentDeputy ClerkCourt ReporterAttorneys Present for Plaintiffs:Attorneys Present for Defendants:Not PresentNot Present
Proceedings:
(In Chambers) Order DENYING Motion for PreliminaryInjunction (Docket No. 42)
1
“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely tosucceed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is inthe public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).Although a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must make a showing on eachfactor, the Ninth Circuit employs a “version of the sliding scale” approach where “astronger showing of one element may offset a weaker showing of another.” Alliance forthe Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131-35 (9th Cir. 2011). Under thisapproach, a court may issue a preliminary injunction where there are “serious questionsgoing to the merits and a balance of hardships that tips sharply towards the plaintiff . . . ,so long as the plaintiff also shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and thatthe injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 1135 (internal quotation marks omitted).Plaintiffs have not shown any likelihood that Defendants will be found liable fortheir continuing activities. There is ample evidence of BitTorrent’s – and other P2Psoftware’s – ability to infringe copyrights and that a large number of individuals use thesoftware to infringe. Defendants are clearly aware of both of these facts. However,
1
The Court deems this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ.P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. The hearing set for February 25, 2013 is removed from the Court’scalendar.
CV-90 (12/02)
MEMORANDUM
Page 1 of 2
Case 2:11-cv-09437-DSF-JC Document 53 Filed 02/19/13 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:1486
Download and print this document
- Read and print without ads
- Download to keep your version
- Edit, email or read offline
