Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07840/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07840-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 160
Nature of Suit: Stockholder's Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Stockholders Suits

---

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

The Gastons and the Gottesmans are shareholders of Vizions, and members of the

Board of Directors of Vizions.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL D. GASTON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

MATTHEW H. GOTTESMAN, et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-06-7840 MMC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Before the Court is plaintiff Michael D. Gaston and Douglas Gaston’s motion for a

temporary restraining order, filed December 22, 2006. Having reviewed plaintiffs’ motion

and supporting papers, the Court rules as follows.

By the instant motion, plaintiffs seek an order (1) prohibiting defendants Matthew H.

Gottesman and Michael J. Gottesman (collectively, the “Gottesmans”) from calling a

meeting of the shareholders of Vizions, Inc. (“Vizions”) scheduled for today, December 22,

2006, at which meeting, plaintiffs assert, a motion will be made to remove them from the

Board of Directors of Vizions1

; (2) prohibiting the Gottesmans from taking steps to remove

the plaintiffs from the Board of Directors; and (3) prohibiting the Gottesmans from accepting

investments in or loans to Vizions and/or spending investments in or loans to Vizions.

Case 3:06-cv-07840-MMC Document 7 Filed 12/22/06 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

“In this circuit, preliminary injunctive relief is available to a party who demonstrates

either (1) a combination of probable success and the possibility of irreparable harm, or (2)

that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardship tips in its favor.” See

Arcamuzi v. Continental Air Lines, Inc., 819 F. 2d 935, 937 (9th Cir. 1987). “These two

formulations represent two points on a sliding scale in which the required degree of

irreparable harm increases as the probability of success decreases.” Id. “As an irreducible

minimum, the moving party must demonstrate a fair chance of success on the merits, or

questions serious enough to require litigation.” Id. (internal quotations and citation omitted). 

“Under any formulation of the test, the moving party must demonstrate a significant threat

of irreparable injury.” Id.

Here, plaintiffs have failed to offer evidence sufficient to raise an inference that the

issuance of shares to investors was in violation of Vizion’s governing documents or

otherwise improper. Further, plaintiffs have failed to offer evidence sufficient to raise an

inference that either plaintiffs or Vizions will suffer injury for which they could not be

compensated if the actions challenged herein were later found to be without authorization

and set aside.

Accordingly, the motion is hereby DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 22, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-07840-MMC Document 7 Filed 12/22/06 Page 2 of 2