Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02187/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02187-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 Copyright Infringement

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRED A. CLARK, PH.D., No. CIV.S-05-2187 GEB DAD PS

et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

AMAZON.COM, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________/

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this copyright

infringement action by paying the appropriate filing fee and filing

his complaint on October 31, 2005. On September 18, 2006, plaintiff

filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order. For

the reasons set forth below, the undersigned will recommend that

plaintiff’s application be denied.

Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief fails to comply

with the provisions of Local Rule 65-231. Specifically, L.R. 65-

231(c)(4)-(7) requires that the party seeking a temporary restraining

Case 2:05-cv-02187-GEB-DAD Document 66 Filed 09/26/06 Page 1 of 4
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

2

order provide an affidavit in support of the existence of irreparable

injury; an affidavit detailing the notice or efforts to effect notice

to the affected parties or counsel; a proposed temporary restraining

order with a provision for a bond; and a proposed order for any

hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction. Plaintiff has failed

to file with the court any of the above. 

Beyond these deficiencies, plaintiff has failed to make a

showing entitling him to the requested relief. The legal principles

applicable to a request for injunctive relief are well established. 

To prevail, the moving party must show either a likelihood of success

on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or that

serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips

sharply in the movant’s favor. See Coalition for Economic Equity v.

Wilson, 122 F.3d 692, 700 (9th Cir. 1997); Oakland Tribune, Inc. v.

Chronicle Publ’g Co., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th Cir. 1985). The two

formulations represent two points on a sliding scale with the focal

point being the degree of irreparable injury shown. Oakland Tribune,

762 F.2d at 1376. “Under any formulation of the test, plaintiff must

demonstrate that there exists a significant threat of irreparable

injury.” Id. In the absence of a significant showing of possible

irreparable harm, the court need not reach the issue of likelihood of

success on the merits. Id.

Here, plaintiff seeks an order “restraining Amazon from

selling Clark’s copyrighted book titled Teenage Street Gangs:

Differences, Membership & Intervention (‘Teenage Street Gangs’).” 

(Ex Parte App. at 1.) The application asserts that defendant’s web

Case 2:05-cv-02187-GEB-DAD Document 66 Filed 09/26/06 Page 2 of 4
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

3

site continues to “list and sell Clark’s copyright work. Clark, as

well as all others similarly situated, are entitled to immediate

injunctive relief to protect their copyrighted works and the revenue

that comes from the sale of these works.” (Ex Parte App. at 2.)

However, aside from these conclusory assertions, plaintiff has not

demonstrated by affidavit that immediate and irreparable injury,

loss, or damage will result if the requested relief is not granted. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). Plaintiff initiated this action almost

one year ago. His delay in seeking the requested injunctive relief

contradicts his current allegation of threatened irreparable harm for

which emergency relief is required. Moreover, plaintiff’s amended

complaint seeks only compensatory and punitive damages. This too

weighs against a claim of irreparable injury. See Cotter v. Desert

Palace, Inc., 880 F.2d 1142, 1145 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[i]njuries

compensable in monetary damages are ‘not normally considered

irreparable.’")(quoting Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Com. v.

National Football League, 634 F.2d 1197, 1202 (9th Cir. 1980)).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s ex

parte application for temporary restraining order be denied.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within ten days after being

served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file

written objections with the court. Such a document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file

Case 2:05-cv-02187-GEB-DAD Document 66 Filed 09/26/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal

the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th

Cir. 1991).

DATED: September 25, 2006.

DAD:th

ddad1\orders.prose\clark2187.f&r.tro

Case 2:05-cv-02187-GEB-DAD Document 66 Filed 09/26/06 Page 4 of 4