Barnett v. Garrigan

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW BARNETT, et al., Case No. 20-cv-02585-VC

Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' v. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BERNARD GARRIGAN, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 129 Defendants.

The plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is denied as the plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the merits or that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief. See Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).1 1. Likelihood of Success on the Merits: The plaintiffs seek an order enjoining a defamation action pending in state court. The Anti-Injunction Act prohibits federal courts from enjoining state court proceedings “except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.” 28 U.S.C. § 2283. As the state action does not fall within any of these exceptions, this Court cannot issue the relief the plaintiffs seek. 2. Irreparable Harm: Even if the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits, injunctive relief would not be appropriate because the plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they will suffer

1 Because the plaintiffs do not come close to meeting the requirements to warrant emergency injunctive relief, it is appropriate to resolve the motion without waiting for the briefing schedule to complete. irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief. The state court action that the plaintiffs seek to enjoin was filed over five months ago. The fact that the plaintiffs waited five months to seek relief undermines their argument that they will face irreparable harm without an injunction. And to the extent the state lawsuit is frivolous or lacks merit, the plaintiffs have not shown that the state court is unable to remedy the injury they claim to suffer from it. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 24, 2022 Koo. VINCE CHHABRIA United States District Judge