Laura M Wells et al v. American Polygraph Association et al

Filing 87

ORDER that Plaintiff Laura M. Wells' 20 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is denied without prejudice. ORDERED that Plaintiff Melanie Haswood's 82 Motion for a Hearing on Ms. Wells' Motion is denied without prejudice; Pl aintiffs' 84 Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and for Preliminary and Permanent Injunctions is denied without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' 86 Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limit is denied as moot. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 9/20/2013.(LFIG)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 10 11 Laura M. Wells; Kelley L. Bradbury; Morgan M. Block; Melanie Haswood; Brian Gilmore; Bradley Ledford; Elie Lahhoud; Timothy Roberts; Elizabeth Trujillo; Devin Brennan; Dean Bausman; William Reynolds; and Nancy Farran, No. CV-13-00607-PHX-GMS ORDER Plaintiffs, 12 13 v. 14 American Polygraph Association; Barry Cushman; Charles Slupski; Pam Shaw; George Baranowski; Robert Peters; Walt Goodson; Jamie McCloughan; Raymond Nelson; Mike Gougler; Vickie T. MurphyCarr; Chad Russell; Gordon L. Vaughan; Donald Krapohl; Robbie S. Bennett; Donnie Dutton; Lisa Jacocks; and Roy Ortiz, 15 16 17 18 19 Defendants. 20 Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for a Temporary 21 Restraining Order and for Preliminary and Permanent Injunctions (Doc. 84), Plaintiff 22 Melanie Haswood’s Motion for a Hearing on an Emergency Temporary Restraining 23 Order (Doc. 82), and Plaintiff Laura M. Wells’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining 24 Order (Doc. 20). For the reasons discussed below, these motions are denied without 25 prejudice. 26 This case arises out of a variety of incidents surrounding the accreditation of the 27 Polygraph School of Science (the “School”) by the American Polygraph Association (the 28 “APA”), an organization governing polygraph schools. (Doc. 24.) 1 As an initial matter, Plaintiffs’ Motion for a TRO and for Preliminary and 2 Permanent Injunctions fails as it is brought on behalf of the School as well as the 3 individual plaintiffs, (Doc. 84), and the School is not a party to this action as of Plaintiffs’ 4 Amended Complaint (the “FAC”), (Doc. 24). 5 Additionally, Plaintiffs’ pleadings neither allege any claim under this Court’s 6 jurisdiction nor provide any basis on which to grant a hearing or the relief sought.1 7 Plaintiffs assert jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Id. at 2.) The Court has such 8 jurisdiction over cases in which plaintiffs and defendants are citizens of different states 9 and the amount in controversy is greater than $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The Supreme 10 Court has interpreted Section 1332 to require complete diversity between parties, where 11 “the citizenship of each plaintiff is diverse from the citizenship of each defendant.” 12 Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). Here, it is clear from the face of 13 Plaintiffs’ FAC that the action does not meet the requirement for complete diversity of 14 citizenship. (Doc. 24 at 2–6.) 15 In their FAC, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants committed libel, slander, breach of 16 contract, disparagement, discrimination, and negligent interference with a contract in 17 their dealings with the School and with the Plaintiffs. (Doc. 24 at 2, 17–20.) Plaintiffs fail 18 to specify any federal law claims that would give rise to jurisdiction in this Court. (Id.) 19 Finally, Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate any basis for their right to a hearing on their 20 Motion or to the relief sought. A plaintiff must establish four elements in order to be 21 granted a preliminary injunction, including “that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that 22 he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance 23 of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. 24 Nat't Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008), see Fed. R. Civ. P. 65. The Ninth Circuit 25 considers all of the elements except for irreparable injury using a sliding scale approach, 26 where “the elements of the preliminary injunction test are balanced, so that a stronger 27 28 1 The pleadings also provide no indication of why the Court should allow these thirteen Plaintiffs to join their claims in this action. -2- 1 showing of one element may offset a weaker showing of another.” Alliance for the Wild 2 Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). The element of irreparable 3 injury is not subject to balance; the moving party must “demonstrate that irreparable 4 injury is likely in the absence of an injunction.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 23 (emphasis in 5 original). 6 Plaintiffs state that they have satisfied these requirements but such conclusory 7 statements are insufficient. Plaintiffs must actually make some demonstration that they 8 have met these requirements through affidavits or admissible evidence. For example, 9 while Plaintiffs assert that they will likely succeed on the merits of their claims, they 10 provide no factual basis for this statement, and aside from asserting what appear to be 11 generic claims arising from state law, offer no reason why this Court should rule that they 12 will likely succeed on the merits. Until and unless Plaintiffs provide such arguments and 13 evidence, they have not demonstrated their right to a hearing. Accordingly, 14 15 16 17 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff Laura M. Wells’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 20) is denied without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Melanie Haswood’s Motion for a Hearing (Doc. 82) on Ms. Wells’ Motion is denied without prejudice. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDED that Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for a Temporary 19 Restraining Order and for Preliminary and Permanent Injunctions (Doc. 84) is denied 20 without prejudice. 21 22 23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limit (Doc. 86) is denied as moot. Dated this 20th day of September, 2013. 24 25 26 27 28 -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?