Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02870/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02870-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 196
Nature of Suit: Franchise
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

MELANIE CHANTELL LATRONICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-02870-RS 

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND 

COURT INTERVENTION AND TO 

SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiff Melanie Chantell Latronica has filed claims against hundreds of private and 

government agencies and people in the United States and abroad. She has also filed three motions 

for preliminary injunctions and a motion for court intervention. None of the defendants has been 

served.

A preliminary injunction order is an “extraordinary remedy” that is “never granted as of 

right.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). To obtain a preliminary 

injunction, a plaintiff must “establish 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, 555 U.S. at 20. Alternatively, if the 

moving party can demonstrate the requisite likelihood of irreparable harm, and show that an 

injunction is in the public interest, a preliminary injunction may issue so long as there are serious 

questions going to the merits and the balance of hardships tips sharply in the moving party’s favor. 

Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). In any case, a court 

Case 3:16-cv-02870-RS Document 13 Filed 06/14/16 Page 1 of 2
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND TO SHOW CAUSE

CASE NO. 16-cv-02870-RS

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

“must balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each party of the 

granting or withholding of the requested relief.” Amoco Prod. Co. v. Village of Gambell, AK, 480 

U.S. 531, 542 (1987).

All of Latronica’s filings are incomprehensible and appear to be frivolous. She has not 

identified whom to enjoin or explained what activities the defendants should be prevented from 

doing. Moreover, Latronica has not demonstrated this court has subject-matter jurisdiction or that 

venue in the Northern District of California is proper. Nor is it clear Latronica has stated a claim 

upon which relief can be granted. What is clear, however, is that Latronica has sued numerous 

people who are likely entitled to judicial or official immunity. In light of these numerous pleading 

deficiencies, Latronica has failed to establish that she is likely to succeed on the merits, as she 

must to obtain a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, her motions for preliminary injunction and 

for court intervention must be denied.

In addition, Latronica is ordered to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for 

lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

Latronica must file a response to this order by July 1, 2016, at 5:00 p.m. If she fails to do so, this 

matter will be dismissed without further notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 14, 2016

______________________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-02870-RS Document 13 Filed 06/14/16 Page 2 of 2