Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03808/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03808-3/pdf.json

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

---

1 

[proposed] ORDER GRANTING PLTF’S APP. FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SFO 316650v2 65187-634 

Case No. 06-03808 SBA 

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 

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 

Joseph E. Addiego III (CA State Bar No. 169522) 

Salle E. Yoo (CA State Bar No. 182703) 

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 

One Embarcadero Center, Suite 600 

San Francisco, California 94111 

Telephone: (415) 276-6500 

Facsimile: (415) 276-6599 

Email: joeaddiego@dwt.com 

 salleyoo@dwt.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Clearwire Spectrum Holdings, LLC 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

Clearwire Spectrum Holdings, LLC, a Nevada 

limited liability company, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

Peralta Community College District, a California 

public agency, 

 Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 06-03808 SBA 

ORDER GRANTING CLEARWIRE’S 

APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY 

INJUNCTION 

Hon. Saundra B. Armstrong 

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS: 

Having considered the papers submitted in support of and in opposition to Plaintiff 

CLEARWIRE SPECTRUM HOLDINGS, LLC’s (“Clearwire”) Application for a Preliminary 

Injunction, the evidence and the arguments offered by the parties in connection therewith, this 

Court GRANTS the Application as follows: 

The Court finds as follows: 

Findings of Facts

1. That Clearwire did not fail to perform a material obligation under the EBS Excess 

Capacity Use and Royalty Agreement, entered into by CSH and Defendant on December 22, 2005 

Case 4:06-cv-03808-SBA Document 35 Filed 07/18/06 Page 1 of 4
 2 

[proposed] ORDER GRANTING PLTF’S APP. FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SFO 316650v2 65187-634 

Case No. 06-03808 SBA 

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 

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 

(“Agreement”), specifically that the Agreement did not impose on Clearwire any material 

obligation to provide Defendant with a “side letter” nor “side agreement”; 

2. That Defendant failed to follow the termination procedures set forth in Section 

12(b) of the Agreement; 

3. That Defendant did not properly terminate the Agreement such that it remains in 

full force and effect; 

4. That Clearwire has performed all of its material obligations under the Agreement; 

5. That Defendant failed to perform its material obligations under the Agreement by, 

inter alia, failing and refusing to cooperate in the preparation of the FCC Long Term Lease 

Application; 

6. That the parties expressly agreed in the Agreement that “the rights reserved to each 

of them hereunder are of a special, unique, unusual and extraordinary character, and that 

irreparable harm would occur in the event that any of the agreements and provisions of this 

Agreement were not performed fully by the parties hereto in accordance with their specific terms 

or conditions or were otherwise breached, and that money damages are an inadequate remedy” and 

that each of them is “entitled to an injunction or injunctions to restrain, enjoin, and prevent 

breaches of this Agreement by the other party and to enforce specifically such terms and 

provisions of this Agreement in any state or federal court of the United States”; 

7. That Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law, in that the 2.5 GHz spectrum is 

extremely scarce and such spectrum is presently unavailable in Oakland and the San Francisco 

Bay Area. Further, the calculation of the value of the spectrum provided to CSH under the 

Agreement would be extremely difficult and costly to ascertain; 

 Conclusion of Law

1. That Clearwire likely will succeed on the merits regarding its claim for Declaratory 

Relief, including but not limited to obtaining a declaration from this Court that Clearwire has not 

breached any material obligation imposed on it by the Agreement, because Clearwire was not 

required by the Agreement to provide Defendant with the supposed side letter, and because 

Case 4:06-cv-03808-SBA Document 35 Filed 07/18/06 Page 2 of 4
 3 

[proposed] ORDER GRANTING PLTF’S APP. FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SFO 316650v2 65187-634 

Case No. 06-03808 SBA 

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 

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 

Defendant did not properly follow the termination procedures under the Agreement, such that the 

Agreement remains in full force and effect; 

2. That Plaintiff likely will succeed on the merits in showing that Defendant has failed 

to perform its material obligations under the Agreement; 

3. That Clearwire likely will succeed on the merits regarding its claim for Specific 

Performance, because Clearwire has performed all of its material obligations under the 

Agreement, but Defendant has failed to perform its material obligations under the Agreement by 

not cooperating in the preparation and filing of the FCC Long Term Lease Application, and further 

because the spectrum like that which is the subject of the Agreement is rare and otherwise owned 

or encumbered in the Oakland/San Francisco Bay Area market, and damages for Defendant’s 

failure to perform are difficult and expensive to ascertain, such that there is no adequate remedy at 

law that will compensate Clearwire for Defendant’s failure to perform and otherwise abide by the 

Agreement; 

4. That Plaintiff faces a possibility of immediate, irreparable injury unless the Court 

enters a preliminary injunction restraining the unlawful conduct addressed herein and, 

alternatively or additionally, that the balance of hardships with respect to the specifically requested 

restraints tips decidedly in Plaintiff’s favor, as a denial of the reasonable temporary injunctive 

relief requested by Plaintiff would injure it far more than the granting of such relief will harm 

Defendant, if at all, since Defendant has not yet begun receiving monthly payments under the 

Agreement. 

 Accordingly, GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant, 

its officers, employees, agents, representatives and all persons active in concert and participation 

with any of them are enjoined and restrained from engaging in or performing any of the following: 

a. any acts that would effect the transfer, sale, assignment or lease to any third 

party or otherwise dispose of or encumber any of the spectrum that is the 

subject of the Agreement between CSH and Defendant. 

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

65(c), this Order shall become effective upon Plaintiff’s filing an appropriate undertaking of 

Case 4:06-cv-03808-SBA Document 35 Filed 07/18/06 Page 3 of 4
 4 

[proposed] ORDER GRANTING PLTF’S APP. FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SFO 316650v2 65187-634 

Case No. 06-03808 SBA 

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 

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 

$100,00.00, by August 1, 2006, and shall remain in effect throughout the course of this litigation, 

or until further order of the Court, whichever comes earlier, and may be extended by consent or 

upon a showing of good cause. 

DATED this __18th___ day of July, 2006. 

By: ___ 

 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 4:06-cv-03808-SBA Document 35 Filed 07/18/06 Page 4 of 4