Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02017/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02017-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CYNTHIA PROSTERMAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

AIRLINE TARIFF PUBLISHING 

COMPANY, AMERICAN AIRLINES, 

INC., DELTA AIR LINES, INC., and 

UNITED AIRLINES, INC.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-02017-MMC 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Re: Dkt. No. 3

Before the Court is plaintiffs’ “Application for Temporary Restraining Order and 

Order to Show Cause Regarding Preliminary Injunction,” filed April 18, 2016. By order 

filed April 18, 2016, the Court denied the motion to the extent it sought issuance of a 

temporary restraining order, and directed defendants to respond to the request for a 

preliminary injunction. Thereafter, each defendant filed timely opposition, to which 

plaintiff timely replied. 

The matter came on regularly for hearing on today’s date. Joseph M. Alioto, 

Jamie L. Miller, Thomas Paul Pier, and Gil D. Messina of the Alioto Law Firm appeared 

on behalf of plaintiffs. J. Parker Erkmann and John C. Dwyer of Cooley LLP appeared on 

behalf of defendant Airline Tariff Publishing Company; Daniel M. Wall and Sadik Huseny 

of Latham & Watkins LLP appeared on behalf of defendant American Airlines, Inc.; 

James P. Denvir and Michael Mitchell of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP appeared on 

behalf of defendant Delta Air Lines, Inc.; and Peter K. Huston of Sidley Austin LLP 

appeared on behalf of defendant United Airlines, Inc.

Case 3:16-cv-02017-MMC Document 54 Filed 05/13/16 Page 1 of 2
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

The Court having considered the parties’ respective written submissions and the 

arguments of counsel, and for the reasons stated by the Court on the record at the 

hearing, the motion for a preliminary injunction is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 13, 2016

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-02017-MMC Document 54 Filed 05/13/16 Page 2 of 2