Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Defendants.
[PROPOSED]
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
The plaintiff filed its complaint on April 21, 2017, and simultaneously filed a motion for
preliminary injunction. On ___________, 2017, the Court heard oral argument on the motion.
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on its contention that Resolution 16-637 violates the First
Amendment. A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that: (1) it is likely to
succeed on the merits; (2) no adequate remedy exists at law; (3) it will suffer irreparable harm if
a preliminary injunction is denied. Ezell v. City of Chi., 651 F.3d 684, 694 (7th Cir. 2011). If this
burden is met, then the Court must weigh the factors against one another and assess whether the
balance of harms favors the moving party or whether the harm to the nonmoving party or the
favor of issuing the injunction. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, the
Court GRANTS the Motion enjoining Defendants Milwaukee County, the Milwaukee County
Board of Supervisors, and the Milwaukee County Department of Parks, Recreation, and Culture
and their employees, agents, and representatives, and all persons in active concert or
participation with any of them from enforcing Resolution 16-637 pending the final resolution of
this action.
_________________________________
United States District Court Judge
15747086-1
2
Case 2:17-cv-00569-JPS Filed 04/21/17 Page 2 of 2 Document 6-6