Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02303/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02303-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Contitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

HELIX ELECTRIC, INC.,

NO. CIV. 05-2303 FCD KJM

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS

ENFORCEMENT, an agency of the

State of California;

DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS, an agency of the

State of California; DONNA

DELL, an individual in her

capacity as Labor Commissioner

of the State of California;

JOHN REA, an individual in his

capacity as Acting Director of

the Department of Industrial

Relations of the State of

California; COUNTY OF

SACRAMENTO, PUBLIC WORKS

COMPLIANCE PROGRAM,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on plaintiff Helix Electric,

Inc.’s (“Helix”) ex parte application for an injunction pending

appeal of this court’s February 27, 2006 Order, which denied

plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Pursuant to

Case 2:05-cv-02303-FCD-KJM Document 52 Filed 03/13/06 Page 1 of 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

2

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(c), plaintiff seeks to enjoin

defendants from releasing the home addresses of Helix’s employees

to defendant Public Works Compliance Program (“PWCP”) under Labor

Code Section 1776(e). In considering whether to grant an

injunction pending appeal pursuant to Rule 62(c), the court must

weigh (1) movant’s establishment of a strong likelihood of

success on the merits; (2) the balance of irreparable harm; and

(3) the public interest in granting an injunction. Warm Springs

Dam Task Force v. Gribble, 565 F.2d 549, 551 (9th Cir. 1977)

(citing Alpine Lakes Protection Soc’y v. Schlapfer, 518 F.2d

1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 1975). 

For the reasons set forth in the court’s February 27 Order,

plaintiff has not presented evidence of irreparable harm to its

interests under the facts of this case. Further, for the reasons

set forth in the court’s February 27 Order, plaintiff has not

demonstrated probability of success on the merits. As such,

plaintiff’s ex parte application for an injunction pending appeal

is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 13, 2006

 /s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-02303-FCD-KJM Document 52 Filed 03/13/06 Page 2 of 2