Opinion ID: 203925
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The First Motion for Injunctive Relief

Text: On May 11, Dr. González-Droz filed his first motion for a preliminary injunction. He asked the court to enjoin[ ] defendants from holding a hearing on May 15, 2007, or any other date and order[ ] defendants to reinstate [his] medical license. The district court did not immediately rule on this motion, and the Board conducted a hearing in absentia on May 15, 2007, as scheduled. [4] While waiting for the district court's decision on his preliminary injunction request, Dr. González-Droz filed an Amended Complaint in which he repeated his previous constitutional challenges to the Notice and added allegations that the summary suspension of his license violated his procedural Due Process rights. After a hearing, the district court denied appellant's first motion for a preliminary injunction on February 7, 2008. The court concluded that because Dr. González-Droz had failed to argue that a denial of his request for a preliminary injunction would cause irreparable injury, he had failed to establish one of the required elements for relief. The court also summarily stated that Dr. González-Droz was unlikely to succeed on the merits of his substantive due process challenge to the Notice, as it was clear[ ] that the Board has the power to regulate who can practice cosmetic medicine, and that it did so. A timely appeal followed.