Anderson v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

Opinion

KRISTINA ANDERSON, Case No.: 2:24-cv-01162-APG-DJA

Plaintiff Order Denying Motions for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary v. Injunction

LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE [ECF Nos. 53, 54] DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants

Plaintiff Kristina Anderson moves for an emergency temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, asserting that the defendants are surveilling and harassing her in retaliation for pursuing this lawsuit. Anderson asserts that since filing this suit, she has experienced having unmarked vehicles parked near her residence, phone calls drop while discussing the case, and “Wi-Fi network intrusions.” ECF No. 53 at 1. She requests that I enjoin the defendants from surveilling her or “interfering with her electronic devices.” Id. The defendants did not respond. To qualify for a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm, (3) the balance of hardships favors the plaintiff, and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Alternatively, under the sliding scale approach, the plaintiff must demonstrate (1) serious questions on the merits, (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm, (3) the balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor, and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011). ] I deny Anderson’s motion because she has presented no evidence to support it. There is evidence that the defendants have surveilled her or will do so in the future, or that they have 3] interfered with her phone or internet connections. She therefore has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, a likelihood of irreparable harm, that the balance of hardships tips in her 5 favor, or that the public interest favors an injunction. 6 I THEREFORE ORDER that plaintiff Kristina Anderson’s motions for temporary 7 \ restraining order and preliminary injunction (ECF Nos. 53, 54) are DENIED. 8 DATED this 3rd day of July, 2025. 9 Z. ANDREWP.GORDON SS CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE