Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06128/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06128-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TODD GLASSEY,

Plaintiff, No. C 06-6128 PJH

v. ORDER DENYING APPLICATION

FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

D-LINK CORPORATION, and DOES ORDER

1-10,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Plaintiff Todd Glassey filed the instant action on September 29, 2006, alleging

violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and other statutory and common law

claims, as a result of defendant D-Link Corporation’s (“D-Link”) alleged unauthorized

actions with respect to plaintiff’s proprietary business. Plaintiff operates several Internet

based “network time service depots,” which appear to relate to the provision of network

systems.

The complaint specifically states that D-Link should be held liable for its

“unauthorized programming of Glassey.com’s IP addresses into its routers as a perprogrammed feature without Glassey.com’s permission.” According to plaintiff, D-Link’s

actions constitute fraud and tortious interference, and are furthermore actionable under the

Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and federal racketeering statutes. 

On October 16, 2006, plaintiff filed an ex parte application for a temporary

restraining order, and a request for an order to show cause regarding a preliminary

injunction. Plaintiff claims that a temporary restraining order and order to show cause are

necessary “to prevent D-Link’s unauthorized actions from driving [plaintiff] out of business

and destroying his relationship with his Network Services provider.” See Mot. at 1:15-20. 

Case 4:06-cv-06128-PJH Document 8 Filed 10/16/06 Page 1 of 2
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

Plaintiff seeks an order preventing D-link from either selling or deploying in any form,

without proper authorization, any “devices” that are programmed to use plaintiff’s privately

operated Internet based services. 

Plaintiff, however, has not filed a proof of service indicating that his request has

been served on defendant, nor has he complied with the requirements of Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 65(b). Accordingly, his request is hereby DENIED. 

In addition, plaintiff has not satisfied the standard for issuance of a temporary

restraining order in this court. To prevail on a motion for preliminary injunctive relief (which

includes temporary restraining orders), a plaintiff must demonstrate a strong likelihood of

success on the merits, the possibility of irreparable injury to plaintiff if preliminary relief is

not granted, a balance of hardships favoring the plaintiff, and advancement of the public

interest (in certain cases). See Rodde v. Bonta, 357 F.3d 988, 994 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Alternatively, injunctive relief may be granted if the plaintiff demonstrates either a

combination of probably success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury or

that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in their favor. 

Id.

Here, plaintiff has made no showing of a likelihood or a probability of success on the

merits of the claim asserted in the complaint. In addition, while he has arguably made

some showing of injury, he has not established a possibility that the injury is irreparable. 

Nor has he provided any information regarding the balance of hardships. The court will not

consider an application for a temporary restraining order or a motion for preliminary

injunction, unless the plaintiff makes a reasonable attempt to meet the above-cited Ninth

Circuit standard. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 16, 2006 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-06128-PJH Document 8 Filed 10/16/06 Page 2 of 2