Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00607/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00607-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Libel,Assault,Slander

---

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 

Laura M. Wells; Kelley L. Bradbury; 

Morgan M. Block; Melanie Haswood; 

Brian Gilmore; Bradley Ledford; Elie 

Lahhoud; Timothy Roberts; Elizabeth 

Trujillo; Devin Brennan; Dean Bausman; 

William Reynolds; and Nancy Farran, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

American Polygraph Association; Barry 

Cushman; Charles Slupski; Pam Shaw; 

George Baranowski; Robert Peters; Walt 

Goodson; Jamie McCloughan; Raymond 

Nelson; Mike Gougler; Vickie T. MurphyCarr; Chad Russell; Gordon L. Vaughan; 

Donald Krapohl; Robbie S. Bennett; 

Donnie Dutton; Lisa Jacocks; and Roy 

Ortiz, 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-00607-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for a Temporary 

Restraining Order and for Preliminary and Permanent Injunctions (Doc. 84), Plaintiff 

Melanie Haswood’s Motion for a Hearing on an Emergency Temporary Restraining 

Order (Doc. 82), and Plaintiff Laura M. Wells’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining 

Order (Doc. 20). For the reasons discussed below, these motions are denied without 

prejudice. 

 This case arises out of a variety of incidents surrounding the accreditation of the 

Polygraph School of Science (the “School”) by the American Polygraph Association (the 

“APA”), an organization governing polygraph schools. (Doc. 24.) 

Case 2:13-cv-00607-GMS Document 87 Filed 09/20/13 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

 As an initial matter, Plaintiffs’ Motion for a TRO and for Preliminary and 

Permanent Injunctions fails as it is brought on behalf of the School as well as the 

individual plaintiffs, (Doc. 84), and the School is not a party to this action as of Plaintiffs’ 

Amended Complaint (the “FAC”), (Doc. 24). 

 Additionally, Plaintiffs’ pleadings neither allege any claim under this Court’s 

jurisdiction nor provide any basis on which to grant a hearing or the relief sought.1

Plaintiffs assert jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Id. at 2.) The Court has such 

jurisdiction over cases in which plaintiffs and defendants are citizens of different states 

and the amount in controversy is greater than $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The Supreme 

Court has interpreted Section 1332 to require complete diversity between parties, where 

“the citizenship of each plaintiff is diverse from the citizenship of each defendant.” 

Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). Here, it is clear from the face of 

Plaintiffs’ FAC that the action does not meet the requirement for complete diversity of 

citizenship. (Doc. 24 at 2–6.) 

 In their FAC, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants committed libel, slander, breach of 

contract, disparagement, discrimination, and negligent interference with a contract in 

their dealings with the School and with the Plaintiffs. (Doc. 24 at 2, 17–20.) Plaintiffs fail 

to specify any federal law claims that would give rise to jurisdiction in this Court. (Id.) 

 Finally, Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate any basis for their right to a hearing on their 

Motion or to the relief sought. A plaintiff must establish four elements in order to be 

granted a preliminary injunction, including “that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that 

he 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. 

Nat't Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008), see Fed. R. Civ. P. 65. The Ninth Circuit 

considers all of the elements except for irreparable injury using a sliding scale approach, 

where “the elements of the preliminary injunction test are balanced, so that a stronger 

 

1

 The pleadings also provide no indication of why the Court should allow these 

thirteen Plaintiffs to join their claims in this action. 

Case 2:13-cv-00607-GMS Document 87 Filed 09/20/13 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

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 

showing of one element may offset a weaker showing of another.” Alliance for the Wild 

Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). The element of irreparable 

injury is not subject to balance; the moving party must “demonstrate that irreparable 

injury is likely in the absence of an injunction.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 23 (emphasis in 

original). 

 Plaintiffs state that they have satisfied these requirements but such conclusory 

statements are insufficient. Plaintiffs must actually make some demonstration that they 

have met these requirements through affidavits or admissible evidence. For example, 

while Plaintiffs assert that they will likely succeed on the merits of their claims, they 

provide no factual basis for this statement, and aside from asserting what appear to be 

generic claims arising from state law, offer no reason why this Court should rule that they 

will likely succeed on the merits. Until and unless Plaintiffs provide such arguments and 

evidence, they have not demonstrated their right to a hearing. Accordingly, 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff Laura M. Wells’ Motion for a 

Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 20) is denied without prejudice. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Melanie Haswood’s Motion for a 

Hearing (Doc. 82) on Ms. Wells’ Motion is denied without prejudice. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDED that Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for a Temporary 

Restraining Order and for Preliminary and Permanent Injunctions (Doc. 84) is denied

without prejudice. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Exceed Page 

Limit (Doc. 86) is denied as moot. 

 Dated this 20th day of September, 2013. 

Case 2:13-cv-00607-GMS Document 87 Filed 09/20/13 Page 3 of 3