SolarEdge Technologies Inc. et al v. Enphase Energy, Inc.

Filing 15

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 8 Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order; Setting Expedited Schedule for Preliminary Injunction. Preliminary Injunction Hearing set for Friday 8/4/2017 10:00 AM before Judge Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, Federal Building, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/19/2017)

Case 4:17-cv-04047-YGR Document 15 Filed 07/19/17 Page 1 of 2

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES INC., ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,

6
7
8
9

vs.
ENPHASE ENERGY, INC.,
Defendant.

CASE NO. 17-cv-04047-YGR
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER;
SETTING EXPEDITED SCHEDULE FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Re: Dkt. No. 8

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Plaintiffs SolarEdge Technologies Inc. and SolarEdge Technologies Ltd. have filed their

12

ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order (Dkt. No. 10), seeking to enjoin defendant

13

Enphase Energy, Inc. from continued use of a certain advertisement, which purports to compare

14

the technologies produced by each company. Plaintiffs aver that they have served notice on

15

defense counsel via email and intend to send physical copies of the same as soon as is practicable.

16

(Dkt. No. 8-2 at 3–4.) The Court understands that counsel Charles P. Guarino has accepted

17

service on behalf of defendant in this action.

18

Requests for temporary restraining orders are governed by the same general standards that

19

govern the issuance of a preliminary injunction. See New Motor Vehicle Bd. v. Orrin W. Fox Co.,

20

434 U.S. 1345, 1347 n.2 (1977); Stuhlbarg lnt'l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240

21

F.3d 832, 839 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2001). Preliminary injunctive relief, whether in the form of a

22

temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, is an “extraordinary and drastic remedy,”

23

that is never awarded as of right. Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689-690 (2008) (internal

24

citations omitted). In order to obtain such relief, a plaintiff must establish four factors: (1) he is

25

likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of

26

preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public

27

interest. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council. Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).

28

Case 4:17-cv-04047-YGR Document 15 Filed 07/19/17 Page 2 of 2

1

Here, with respect to the request for a temporary restraining order in advance of a hearing

2

for a preliminary injunction, plaintiffs have wholly failed to establish a likelihood of immediate

3

irreparable harm to justify the issuance of a temporary restraining order at this time. In addition to

4

the issues regarding the alleged improper use of marketing materials between competitors,

5

plaintiffs’ central concern revolves around the possibility of defendant airing the allegedly

6

improper video at a Solar Power International conference scheduled for September 10–13, 2017.

7

Given the Court’s ability to hold an expedited hearing, plaintiffs’ showing with respect to

8

immediate harm fails. See Carribean Marine Servs. Co., Inc. v. Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th

9

Cir. 1988) (“A plaintiff must do more than merely allege imminent harm sufficient to establish
standing; a plaintiff must demonstrate immediate threatened injury as a prerequisite to preliminary

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

injunctive relief.). As such, the Court need not address the remaining factors at this time. See

12

Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1172 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that a plaintiff must

13

demonstrate a likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief in every case).

14

According, and for the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary

15

restraining order.

16

In light of plaintiffs’ representations, however, the Court FINDS that an expedited schedule

17

for a preliminary injunction is appropriate. The Court hereby SETS the following briefing and

18

hearing schedule on the same: Defendant must file its opposition to a preliminary injunction no

19

later than Wednesday, July 26, 2017. Plaintiffs’ reply to defendant’s opposition shall be due on

20

Monday, July 31, 2017. The hearing on plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction shall be

21

held on Friday, August 4, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. in the Federal Building, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland,

22

California, Courtroom 1.

23

Plaintiffs shall serve this Order on defendant by email immediately. Plaintiffs must also

24

serve defendant by overnight mail no later than July 20, 2017. Proof of such service shall be filed

25

no later than July 21, 2017.

26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27

Dated: July 19, 2017
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

28
2