Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04679/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04679-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDDY DOMINGUEZ, NEWTON BUI, TAN

NGUYEN and LICINO VALINO,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ANDREW CORPORATION,

Defendant.

 /

No. C-07-4679 CW

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFFS’

APPLICATIONS FOR A

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND AN ORDER OF

ATTACHMENT

Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application for a temporary

restraining order and a motion for a preliminary injunction

enjoining Defendant from taking any action to interfere with the

operating agreement between the parties. Plaintiffs also filed an

ex parte application for an order attaching $1,250,000 of

Defendant’s assets as security against any potential judgment in

this case. Plaintiffs filed an affidavit of service of these

applications on Defendant’s registered agent for service of

process. Defendant has not filed an opposition. Having considered

the papers filed by Plaintiffs, the Court DENIES their application

Case 4:07-cv-04679-CW Document 12 Filed 10/02/07 Page 1 of 3
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

for a temporary restraining order, DENIES their application for a

writ of attachment, and DENIES without prejudice their motion for a

preliminary injunction.

A temporary restraining order may be issued only if “immediate

and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the

applicant” if the order does not issue. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). To

obtain a temporary retraining order, the moving party must

establish either: (1) a combination of probable success on the

merits and the possibility of irreparable harm, or (2) that serious

questions regarding the merits exist and the balance of hardships

tips sharply in the moving party’s favor. See Baby Tam & Co. v.

City of Las Vegas, 154 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 1998); Rodeo

Collection, Ltd. v. W. Seventh, 812 F.2d 1215, 1217 (9th Cir.

1987). Plaintiffs have failed to make a sufficient showing of

likely success on the merits of their claims and of irreparable

harm to justify granting the ex parte relief they seek. Therefore,

Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order is DENIED. 

Plaintiffs also have failed to show good cause for an ex parte

attachment of Defendant’s assets, and their application for a writ

of attachment is DENIED.

Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED

without prejudice. Plaintiffs may re-notice their motion for a

preliminary injunction in accordance with the Local Rules if they

so choose. Plaintiffs’ “Memorandum of Points and Authorities in

Support of Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order on

Order to Show Cause re Preliminary Injunction” shall be deemed

their memorandum of points and authorities in support of their

Case 4:07-cv-04679-CW Document 12 Filed 10/02/07 Page 2 of 3
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 3

motion for a preliminary injunction; Plaintiffs may not file an

additional memorandum. If the motion for a preliminary injunction

is noticed, Defendants may file an opposition to the motion not to

exceed ten pages. Plaintiffs may then file a reply.

Plaintiffs shall serve a copy of this order on Defendant

forthwith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10/2/07

Dated: ________________________ 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-04679-CW Document 12 Filed 10/02/07 Page 3 of 3