Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-01347/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-01347-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 31:3731 Fraud

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 (Complaint for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary and Permanent Injunctions and

Damages, hereafter, “Complaint,” Docket Item No. 1.) Plaintiff did not file a formal motion seeking

a Temporary Restraining Order, but instead requests the Order in the context of a Complaint. 

However, the Court construes the request in the Complaint as a motion for Temporary Restraining

Order.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

PanTerra Networks, Inc.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

Does 1-15,

Defendants. /

NO. C 10-01347 JW 

ORDER DENYING TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s request for a Temporary Restraining Order.1 Plaintiff

seeks an order enjoining Defendants from gaining unauthorized access to and distribution of

confidential, proprietary and trade secret information from Plaintiff’s computer systems and

directing Defendants to return all information unlawfully accessed, downloaded or otherwise

obtained from Plaintiff. (Id. at 12.)

A temporary restraining order may be issued if a plaintiff has established: (1) a likelihood of

success on the merits and the possibility of immediate irreparable injury, or (2) the existence of

serious questions going to the merits and that the balance of hardships tips heavily in its favor. See

Metro Publ’g, Ltd. v. San Jose Mercury News, 987 F.2d 637, 639 (9th Cir. 1993). 

Case 5:10-cv-01347-JW Document 7 Filed 04/02/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 It is worth noting that even if the Court were to issue a TRO, the Court would not be able

to structure any form of enjoinment on unknown or non-entities.

2

Here, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin certain activities of fifteen unnamed, and otherwise

unidentified, Defendants. The Court finds that Plaintiff cannot establish any likelihood of success

on the merits without identifying even a single Defendant. Since Plaintiff does not sufficiently

establish any likelihood of success on the merits, the Court finds that a temporary restraining order is

not appropriate at this time.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for a Temporary Restraining Order. The

Court invites Plaintiff to file a proper Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order once one or more

Defendants have been identified and named.2

Dated: April 2, 2010 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:10-cv-01347-JW Document 7 Filed 04/02/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Daniel D. Harshman dharshman@cozen.com

Dated: April 2, 2010 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Elizabeth Garcia

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:10-cv-01347-JW Document 7 Filed 04/02/10 Page 3 of 3