Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-07362/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-07362-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

KATHLEEN NOBLES,

Plaintiff,

v.

FRED M. KERN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-07362-BLF 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[ECF 14]

The application of plaintiff Kathleen Nobles (“Nobles”) for a right to attach order against 

the property of defendants Fred M. Kern (“Kern”) and Plum Holdings LLC, a Nevada Limited 

Liability Company (“Plum Holdings”), and for a preliminary injunction, ECF 14, came on for 

hearing before the Honorable Beth Labson Freeman on March 6, 2020. The Court has separately

memorialized its grant of the motion for a right to attach order. ECF 46. Below, the Court 

memorializes its oral ruling on the motion for a preliminary injunction, which the Court DENIED 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

To obtain a preliminary injunction, Nobles must establish: (1) likelihood of success on the 

merits; (2) likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance 

of equities tips in their favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural 

Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The Ninth Circuit has also approved a “sliding scale” 

“variant of the Winter standard,” under which a plaintiff can meet her burden by showing there are

“serious questions going to the merits”—a lesser showing than a likelihood of success on the 

merits— if she can also show that “the balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor.” 

All. for the Wild Rockies v. Pena, 865 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and 

citations omitted). Importantly, “even under the sliding scale standard, the other two Winter

Case 5:19-cv-07362-BLF Document 49 Filed 03/06/20 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

factors—likelihood of irreparable harm and that the injunction is in the public interest—must be 

satisfied for a preliminary injunction to be issued.” Cascadia Wildlands v. Scott Timber Co., 715 F. 

App’x 621, 623 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 

(9th Cir. 2011)). 

At this time, and in light of the Court’s issuance of a right to attach order under California 

Code of Civil Procedure §§ 483.010 et seq., ECF 46, there is no likelihood of irreparable harm to 

Nobles. As Plaintiff’s counsel agreed at the March 6, 2020 hearing, the right to attach order will 

provide Plaintiff with the protections she seeks. A preliminary injunction is therefore unnecessary.

The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the motion for a preliminary injunction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2020

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:19-cv-07362-BLF Document 49 Filed 03/06/20 Page 2 of 2