National Federation of the Blind et al v. Target Corporation

Filing 40

Proposed Order 29 Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Target Corporation. (Naeve, Robert) (Filed on 6/13/2006) Modified on 6/14/2006 (gba, COURT STAFF).

National Federation of the Blind et al v. Target Corporation

Doc. 40

Case 3:06-cv-01802-MHP

Document 40

Filed 06/13/2006

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ROBERT A. NAEVE (CA SBN 106095) [e-mail] MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 19900 MacArthur Blvd. Irvine, California 92612-2445 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] DAVID F. MCDOWELL (CA SBN 125806) SARVENAZ BAHAR (CA SBN 171556) MICHAEL J. BOSTROM (CA SBN 211778) [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, California 90013-1024 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] STUART C. PLUNKETT (CA SBN 187971) [e-mail] MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant TARGET CORPORATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND, the NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, on behalf of their members, and Bruce F. Sexton, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant.

Case No.

C06-01802 MHP

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Date: July 24, 2006 Time: 2:00 p.m. Judge: The Honorable Marilyn Hall Patel

[PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. 06-01802 MHP la-863469
Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:06-cv-01802-MHP

Document 40

Filed 06/13/2006

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiffs National Federation of the Blind, the National Federation of the Blind of California, and Bruce F. Sexton's (collectively, "NFB") filed a motion for preliminary injunction, which came on for hearing on July 24, 2006, counsel of record for all parties appearing. Having considered NFB's Motion, Defendant Target Corporation's Opposition, NFB's Reply, and additional argument by counsel at the hearing, the Court finds NFB has not met its burden of establishing that it is entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. The Court, therefore, denies NFB's motion. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July __, 2006 Honorable Marilyn Hall Patel United States District Court Judge

[PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. 06-01802 MHP la-863469

1