Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01852/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01852-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SIGMA DYNAMICS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v. 

E.PIPHANY, INC., 

Defendant.

 /

No. C-05-1852 MJJ

ORDER DENYING TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff Sigma Dynamics’ (“Plaintiff”) motion for a temporary

restraining order. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendant Epiphany, Inc. (“Defendant”) from

disseminating false or misleading statements regarding the status of the state court trade secret case

pending between Plaintiff and Defendant to any third party.

Courts apply one of two standards to determine whether a preliminary injunction should

issue. To meet the “traditional” test, the movant must establish: (1) a strong likelihood of success on

the merits; (2) that the balance of irreparable harm favors its case; and (3) that the public interest

favors granting the injunction. Am. Motorcyclist Ass’n v. Watt, 714 F.2d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1983). 

To prevail under the “alternate” test, the movant must demonstrate either a combination of probable

success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or that serious questions are raised and

that the balance of hardships tips sharply in its favor. Id.; see also Diamontiney v. Borg, 918 F.2d

793, 795 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Having thoroughly read and considered the papers submitted by the parties, the Court finds

Case 3:05-cv-01852-MJJ Document 10 Filed 05/06/05 Page 1 of 2
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

that Plaintiff has not established a strong likelihood of success on the merits of its claims. 

Moreover, Plaintiff has not adequately established that it will suffer irreparable injury if the

preliminary injunction does not issue. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion of a temporary restraining

order is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May__6__, 2005 /s/ 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-01852-MJJ Document 10 Filed 05/06/05 Page 2 of 2