Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02129/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02129-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Injunctive &amp; Declaratory Relief

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kevin R. Jones, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Bank of America, N.A., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-2129-PHX-JAT

ORDER

On June 22, 2010, this Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction as

to loan 1. The test the Court applied was as follows:

To obtain preliminary injunctive relief, the moving party must show: (1) a likelihood

of success on the merits; (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm to the moving party in the

absence of preliminary relief; (3) a balance of equities tips in the favor of the moving party;

and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., --- U.S. ----, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008). Traditionally, injunctive relief was also appropriate

under an alternative “sliding scale” test. The Lands Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981, 987

(9th Cir. 2008). However, the Ninth Circuit overruled this standard in keeping with the

Supreme Court’s decision in Winter. American Trucking Ass’ns Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that “[t]o the extent that our cases have

suggested a lesser standard, they are no longer controlling, or even viable”). Additionally,

the Winter standard requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that irreparable harm is real,

imminent and significant– not merely speculative or potential– with admissible evidence and

a clear likelihood of success. 129 S.Ct. at 374.

Doc. 70 at 4-5.

On July 28, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the sliding scale test

of Lands Council survived Winter. Specifically, the Court of Appeals held:

Case 2:09-cv-02129-JAT Document 75 Filed 07/30/10 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 -

“A preliminary injunction is appropriate when a plaintiff demonstrates ... that serious

questions going to the merits were raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in the

plaintiff’s favor.”Lands Council, 537 F.3d at 987.... Of course, plaintiffs must also satisfy

the other Winter factors, including likelihood of irreparable harm.

Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, Slip Op. at 10871 (9th Cir. July 28, 2010).

Because this Court did not consider the alternative sliding scale test in denying

Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, and if Plaintiff believes the outcome would be

different under this alternative test, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff may move for reconsideration of the order denying

the motion for preliminary injunction within 14 days of the Court of Appeals decision (in

other words, by August 11, 2010).

DATED this 30th day of July, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-02129-JAT Document 75 Filed 07/30/10 Page 2 of 2