Edmonds v. D2IQ Inc.
This text of Edmonds v. D2IQ Inc. (Edmonds v. D2IQ Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARK EDMONDS, Case No. 23-cv-02741-VC Plaintiff, y. ORDER Re: Dkt. No. 28 D2IQ INC., et al., Defendants.
Edmonds’s Motion for a Post-Merger Injunction is denied. He has not shown that he is entitled to relief under the Winter factors. See Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). In particular, Edmonds did not demonstrate that he was likely to succeed on the merits against Nutanix, given Nutanix’s evidence that it did not merge with D21Q. An initial case management conference is set for 10:00 a.m. on March 14, 2024, on Zoom. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 25, 2025 = VINCE CHHABRIA United States District Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Edmonds v. D2IQ Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edmonds-v-d2iq-inc-cand-2025.