Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01920/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01920-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 05:551 Administrative Procedure Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAMUL ACTION COMMITTEE, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

JONODEV CHAUDHURI, Acting 

Chairman of the National Indian Gaming 

Commission, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-01920-KJM-KJN 

ORDER 

On May 15, 2015, the court issued an order denying the plaintiffs’ request for a 

writ of mandate and preliminary injunction, ECF No. 93, and on May 19, 2015, the plaintiffs filed 

a notice of interlocutory appeal of that order, ECF No. 94. On May 23, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a 

request for an injunction pending appeal. ECF No. 97. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(c) provides that a court may grant an 

injunction during the pendency of an interlocutory appeal. The same legal standard applies to a 

motion for an injunction pending appeal as to a motion for a preliminary injunction. Sierra 

Forest Legacy v. Rey, 691 F. Supp. 2d 1204, 1207 (E.D. Cal. 2010); Protect Our Water v. 

Flowers, 377 F. Supp. 2d 882, 883 (E.D. Cal. 2004). That standard, as discussed in the court’s 

prior order, requires the moving party to show “that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he 

Case 2:13-cv-01920-KJM-KJN Document 101 Filed 06/01/15 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

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 in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. 

Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). An injunction may issue only upon a clear showing the 

movant is entitled to relief. Lopez v. Brewer, 680 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2012). 

Here, the plaintiffs request relief “[f]or the reasons stated in their [previous] 

motion.” ECF No. 97. Because the court reviewed that motion in its previous order and 

concluded the plaintiffs had not made the required showing, it likewise declines to issue an 

injunction now. 

The request is DENIED. This order disposes of ECF No. 97. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 1, 2015. 

Case 2:13-cv-01920-KJM-KJN Document 101 Filed 06/01/15 Page 2 of 2