Ondrea Tye v. Jeanette Runyon

Filing 30

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 23 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson . (lc). Modified on 4/10/2015 (lc).

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ONDREA TYE, an individual,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
JEANETTE RUNYON, an
individual,

15
16

Defendant.
___________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 14-06160 DDP (JCx)
ORDER DENYING EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
[Dkt. No. 23]

17
18
19

I.

BACKGROUND
On August 6, 2014, Plaintiff Ondrea Tye (“Plaintiff”) filed

20

suit against her sister, Defendant Jeanette Runyon (“Defendant”),

21

alleging claims of defamation, civil harassment, intentional

22

infliction of emotional distress, and false light violation of

23

privacy.

24

subsequently dismissed the civil harassment and false light claims.

25

(See Dkt. No. 20.)

26

(See First Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 9.)

The Court

Plaintiff now seeks a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) that

27

would prevent Defendant from posting Plaintiff’s personal emails

28

online. (See Dkt. No. 23.)

Plaintiff also requests an order to

1

show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be granted

2

regarding the same behavior.

3

Plaintiff’s submission, GRANTS the application for a TRO and the

4

request for an order to show cause.

5

II.

6

(Id.)

The Court, having considered

LEGAL STANDARD
Requests for temporary restraining orders are governed by the

7

same general standards that govern the issuance of a preliminary

8

injunction.

9

Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2001).

See Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush &
An injunction

10

is a matter of equitable discretion and is “an extraordinary remedy

11

that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is

12

entitled to such relief.”

13

Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008).

14

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense

“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish

15

that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to

16

suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that

17

the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction

18

is in the public interest.”

19

injunction “should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear

20

showing, carries the burden of persuasion.”

21

520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (citation omitted).

22

III.

23

Winter, 555 U.S. at 20.

A preliminary

Mazurek v. Armstrong,

ANALYSIS
In this case, Plaintiff has not made a clear showing that she

24

is entitled to relief.

25

that she would suffer irreparable harm.

26

Defendant’s online postings since the commencement of her suit.

27

Plaintiff has also known that Defendant has posted Plaintiff’s

28

emails online since October 2014, when Plaintiff filed her Amended

Firstly, Plaintiff has not demonstrated

2

Plaintiff has known of

1

Complaint.

2

many months to seek injunctive relief in the form of a preliminary

3

injunction, but has only now done so.

4

Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if Plaintiff is not granted

5

the relief she requests.

6

See Dkt. No 18, ¶¶ 11, 18.

Thus, Plaintiff has had

The Court cannot find that

Furthermore, the balance of equities and the public interest

7

do not weigh in Plaintiff’s favor.

Although Plaintiff may succeed

8

on the merits of her defamation claim, the Court cannot find that

9

enjoining Defendant from posting Plaintiff’s emails online would be

10

directly relevant to that claim.

11

examples of Defendant posting attacks of Plaintiff’s character

12

online in her First Amended Complaint as well as in her application

13

for a TRO.

14

mentally ill, harassing Defendant, impersonating Defendant, and

15

cyber-stalking Defendant, among other things.

16

could reasonably be found to be defamatory.

17

emails that are the subject of Plaintiff’s TRO are not Defendant’s

18

own writings or speech; rather, they are emails Plaintiff wrote and

19

sent to a third party that were then forwarded to Defendant.

20

the circumstances, the Court cannot say that Plaintiff has a strong

21

privacy interest in her emails.

22

tip in Plaintiff’s favor, and injunctive relief in this instance

23

would not advance the public interest.

24

Plaintiff has cited to multiple

Defendant’s online statements accuse Plaintiff of being

These statements

However, the actual

Given

The balance of equities does not

A TRO is an “extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded

25

upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such

26

relief.”

27

the issuance of ex parte TROs to a “very few circumstances.”

28

Air Racing Ass’n., Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th

Winter, 555 U.S. at 22.

The Ninth Circuit has limited

3

Reno

1

Cir.2006).

2

she is entitled to such a remedy.

3

III.

4
5

The Court concludes that Plaintiff has not shown that

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s Application for a

TRO and Order to Show Cause is DENIED.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9
10

Dated: April 10, 2015
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4