8/10/2019 Facebook TRO Order

1/3

8/10/2019 Facebook TRO Order

2/3

8/10/2019 Facebook TRO Order

3/3

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

citations omitted). Additionally, injunctive relief that seeks to alter the status quo, like

the mandatory injunction Plaintiff seeks here, is subject to heightened scrutiny and

should not be issued unless the facts and law clearly favor the moving party.Dahl v.

HEM Pharm. Corp., 7 F.3d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1993).Significantly, although Plaintiff indicates he has provided notice of the

Application to Defendants, the Application fails to explain why this Court should take

any action against Defendants without providing Defendants a fair opportunity to be

heard on Plaintiffs Application or why Plaintiff waited almost two months to take any

action on conduct he was aware of as early as September 3, 2014. The urgency of

Plaintiffs TRO request seems to be of his own making and the Court is unwilling to

impose a mandatory injunction on Defendants without an opportunity to be heard when

Plaintiff waited until the last minute to take action.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs request for a TRO is DENIED. However, the Court

orders Defendants to file a response to Plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction

not to exceed 25 pages, on or beforeNovember 14, 2014. Plaintiff may file a Reply

brief, not to exceed 10 pages, on or before November 18, 2014. The matter is set for

hearing on November 21, 2014 at 9:30 a.m.

As Defendants have not yet appeared in this action, Plaintiffs shall serve a copy

of this Order on Defendants immediately.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 3, 2014

Hon. Roger T. BenitezUnited States District Judge

- 3 - 14cv2564

Case 3:14-cv-02564-BEN-KSC Document 9 Filed 11/04/14 Page 3 of 3