Sigma Dynamics Inc v. Epiphany Inc

Filing 10

ORDER by Judge Martin J. Jenkins denying 2 Motion for TRO (mat, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/6/2005)

Sigma Dynamics Inc v. Epiphany Inc

Doc. 10

Case 3:05-cv-01852-MJJ

Document 10

Filed 05/06/2005

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 SIGMA DYNAMICS, INC., Plaintiff, v. E.PIPHANY, INC., Defendant. / Before the Court is Plaintiff Sigma Dynamics' ("Plaintiff") motion for a temporary restraining order. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendant Epiphany, Inc. ("Defendant") from disseminating false or misleading statements regarding the status of the state court trade secret case pending between Plaintiff and Defendant to any third party. Courts apply one of two standards to determine whether a preliminary injunction should issue. To meet the "traditional" test, the movant must establish: (1) a strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that the balance of irreparable harm favors its case; and (3) that the public interest favors granting the injunction. Am. Motorcyclist Ass'n v. Watt, 714 F.2d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1983). To prevail under the "alternate" test, the movant must demonstrate either a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or that serious questions are raised and that the balance of hardships tips sharply in its favor. Id.; see also Diamontiney v. Borg, 918 F.2d 793, 795 (9th Cir. 1990). Having thoroughly read and considered the papers submitted by the parties, the Court finds No. C-05-1852 MJJ ORDER DENYING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:05-cv-01852-MJJ

Document 10

Filed 05/06/2005

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

that Plaintiff has not established a strong likelihood of success on the merits of its claims. Moreover, Plaintiff has not adequately established that it will suffer irreparable injury if the preliminary injunction does not issue. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion of a temporary restraining order is DENIED.
UNIT ED

S

S DISTRICT TE C TA

RT U O
R NIA

VED APPRO

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ER

N

Dated: May__6__, 2005

/s/ MARTIN J. JENKINS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

F D IS T IC T O R

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

A

C

LI

FO

Judge M

Jenkins artin J.

NO

RT

H