Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-06138/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-06138-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Property Damage

---

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

CLEAR CHANNEL OUTDOOR,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

LINDA ERKELENS,

Defendant. /

No. C07-06138 MJJ

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX

PARTE MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER

TO SHOW CAUSE

Before the Court is Plaintiff Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc.’s (“Clear Channel”) Ex Parte

Motion For A Temporary Restraining Order And An Order To Show Cause Re Preliminary

Injunction. (Docket No. 6.) 

To succeed on a motion for a temporary restraining order, a plaintiff must demonstrate it is

entitled to such preliminary relief under either one of two standards. Under the traditional criteria, a

plaintiff must show: (1) a strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the possibility of irreparable

injury to plaintiff if the Court does not grant preliminary relief; (3) a balance of hardships favoring

the plaintiff; and (4) advancement of the public interest (in certain cases). See Earth Island Inst. v.

U.S. Forest Serv., 442 F.3d 1147, 1158 (9th Cir. 2006). Alternatively, a plaintiff may establish

“either a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable harm or

that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor.” Id. “These

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

Case 4:07-cv-06138-SBA Document 17 Filed 12/07/07 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

harm increases as the probability of success decreases.” Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Publ'g

Co., Inc., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th Cir.1985). “Under any formulation of the test, [the] plaintiff

must demonstrate that there exists a significant threat of irreparable injury.” Id. In the absence of a

significant showing of irreparable injury, the Court need not reach the issue of likelihood of success

on the merits. See id. at 1378.

After review of the ex parte application, the Court finds that Clear Channel has failed to

demonstrate that there exists a significant threat of irreparable injury. All injuries alleged by Clear

Channel can be adequately remedied by money damages. Even assuming Clear Channel is correct

that advertising on the sign structure is a “unique” property right, or an unreplaceable economic

opportunity, because of San Francisco’s ban on erecting new advertising signs, Defendant’s alleged

unlawful conversion of the sign, and refusal to allow Clear Channel access to the property, is not

depriving Clear Channel of an ongoing right to utilize that “unique” advertising opportunity given

the termination of the lease between Clear Channel and Defendant. Indeed, Clear Channel concedes

in its moving papers that it is seeking to access the property to remove the sign structure, not to

continue to use it for advertisements. Accordingly, the actual injury that Clear Channel identifies,

on the record before the Court, is limited to an alleged inability to exercise rights under the lease

agreement to remove the sign structure, and alleged competitive injury to the extent a direct

competitor is permitted by Defendant to operate or profit from use of the sign structure. Either kind

of injury, if ultimately proven, can be adequately remedied by monetary damages. 

Because Clear Channel has not made a significant showing of irreparable injury, the Court

need not reach the issue of likelihood of success on the merits to resolve the motion. The Court

DENIES Clear Channel’s ex parte request for a temporary restraining order and for an order

showing cause.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 7, 2007 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:07-cv-06138-SBA Document 17 Filed 12/07/07 Page 2 of 2