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)

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-