Source: https://tr.scribd.com/document/2711541/Securities-Indus-Financial-Markets-Assoc-v-Garfield-et-al-Document-No-21
Timestamp: 2019-07-20 05:51:44
Document Index: 98933858

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 9']

Securities Indus & Financial Markets Assoc v. Garfield et al - Document No. 21 | Injunction | Service Of Process
Securities Indus & Financial Markets Assoc v. Garfield et al - Document No. 21
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 1/3/07. (Simpson, T.) 3:2006cv02005 Connecticut District Court
saveSave Securities Indus &amp;amp; Financial Markets Assoc v. Garf... For Later
GDS Moot Court Case 2015-16
OrdoniaJanuary2017
INTERACTIVE MEDIA ENTERTAINMENT AND GAMING ASSOCIATION, INC. v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES et al - Document No. 7
G. Oliver Koppell, Arnold Linhardt, Marie Morrison v. New York State Board of Elections, Thomas R. Wilkey, as Executive Director of the New York State Board of Elections, Carol Berman, Neil W. Kelleher, Helena Moses Donohue, and Evelyn J. Aquila, as Commissioners of the New York State Board of Elections, and George E. Pataki, as Governor of the State of New York, 153 F.3d 95, 2d Cir. (1998)
Petition for Certiorari Sample
Henrietta Mining & Milling Co. v. Johnson, 173 U.S. 221 (1899)
zsetezxrueruzygderyeizxrjdhjxcftjtrjtr
Stanley Schell v Ste. Genevieve County et al
Republic v Nolasco
Citigroup Global Markets Inc. v. Early et al - Document No. 14
Securities Indus & Financial Markets Assoc v. Garfield et al Doc.
Case 3:06-cv-02005-SRU Document 21 Filed 01/03/2007 Page 1 of 3
MARKETS ASSOCIATION,
3:06cv2005 (SRU)
JEFFREY B. GARFIELD, in his official
capacity as Executive Director and General
Counsel of the State Elections Enforcement
Commission, and RICHARD
BLUMENTHAL, in his official capacity as
Attorney General of the State of Connecticut,
Plaintiff Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (“SIFMA”) has moved for
a preliminary injunction to restrain enforcement of certain Connecticut statutes, which were
enacted in December 2005 as part of An Act Concerning Comprehensive Campaign Finance
Reform for State-Wide Constitutional and General Assembly Offices, Pub. Act No. 05-5 (Dec. 7,
2005), and amended by An Act Concerning the Campaign Finance Reform Legislation and
Certain Election Law and Ethics Provisions, Pub. Act No. 06-137 (June 6, 2006) (the “Act”).
See Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 9-333a, et seq. Specifically, Plaintiff requests that the Court
preliminarily enjoin enforcement of the provision of the Act that requires the collection,
disclosure and publication on the Internet of the identities of spouses and dependent children of
certain directors, officers and employees of state contractors and prospective state contractors.
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-333n(h)(2).
On January 2, 2007, I conducted a hearing on that motion. At that hearing, Plaintiff
established that: (1) in the absence of an injunction, its member firms will suffer irreparable
Case 3:06-cv-02005-SRU Document 21 Filed 01/03/2007 Page 2 of 3
harm; (2) there is a likelihood of success on the merits of one of its constitutional claims; and (3)
the balance of hardships decidedly tips in Plaintiff’s favor with respect to that claim, but not with
respect to its other claims.
Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is hereby
ORDERED that defendants Jeffrey B. Garfield (in his official capacity as Executive Director and
General Counsel of the State Elections Enforcement Commission) and Richard Blumenthal (in
his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Connecticut) are hereby preliminarily
enjoined and prohibited from taking any action to publicly disclose, including by posting on the
Internet pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-333n(h)(2)(B), the names of those individuals who are
defined as principals solely because they are dependent children of a director, executive or
employee who is defined as a principal of a state contractor or prospective state contractor
pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-333n(g)(1)(F).
This order does not affect the enforceability of other provisions of the Act, including the
provisions requiring the public disclosure of the names of principal executives of state
contractors, prospective state contractors, and their spouses. This order does not preclude the
defendants from publicly disclosing the names of dependent children who actually make
contributions in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 9-333g, et seq. In addition, this order does not
preclude the defendants or the State of Connecticut from requiring state contractors and principal
executives of state contractors to disclose the names of their spouses and dependent children to
the State Elections Enforcement Commission. Finally, this order does not preclude the
defendants or State Elections Enforcement Commission from: (1) compiling a master list of all
individuals to whom the contribution ban in Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 9-333g, et seq. applies,
Case 3:06-cv-02005-SRU Document 21 Filed 01/03/2007 Page 3 of 3
including spouses and dependent children, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-333n(h)(2)(A); and
(2) distributing copies of the master list to state agencies charged with enforcement of the Act
and to campaign treasurers upon request pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-333n(h)(2)(C);
provided, however, that when distributing the master list, or any part thereof, the State Elections
Enforcement Commission shall include with the distribution a copy of this order.
This order is binding on the two named defendants, their officers, agents, servants,
employees and attorneys, and upon those persons in active concert or participation with them
who receive actual notice of the order by personal service or otherwise.
The preliminary injunction is issued without a bond and shall remain in effect until a
ruling on the merits of Plaintiff’s claims or further order of this court.
Dated at Bridgeport, Connecticut, this 3rd day of January 2007.
Documents Similar To Securities Indus & Financial Markets Assoc v. Garfield et al - Document No. 21
Marivic Montesclaros
Rule 65 Section 3
Foundry Services, Inc. v. Beneflux Corporation, 206 F.2d 214, 2d Cir. (1953)
McDonald v Tezos 12/20/17 TRO Order Denial
Plaintiffs' Original Petition, Original Declaratory-Judgment Action, Application for Temporary and Permanent Injunction, And Request for Disclosure
Inter.injun.outline 000
Jamil_Jabolo_M_6523
Rutherford Co. probation injunction
Thomas vs Texas
Email to Peggy Steiman and Steinman Enterprises Re Solution July 10, 2015
2017 Perry Primary Election Umova Notice
44_Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, Oct. 17, 2000 (Reconsideration)
bobbobberson915
3_heirs of Doronio vs Heirs of Doronio_espinosa
Public Corp Finals Reviewer (pup)
ra 9262 for I-ding
articlesofconfederationandconstitution-101115092742-phpapp01
Atty. Ismael g. Khan Jr. vs.atty. Rizalino t. Simbillo
Crisis Management Manual Manual 1996 copy.doc
Admin ReviewerForFinals
Final Judgment Ferguson v a G OutBermuda and Jackson v a G
Insurance Finals Cases
Crim-Law-Case-Digests-2008-Mat
IRR OF RA 9184
Bernard Evans Din
Sample - Domestic worker employment contract
Michelle Arends Carolus
Custodio vs CA