Lucas et al v. Camacho et al
Filing
58
ORDER by Judge Benjamin H Settle denying 12 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 24 Motion for Preliminary Injunction.(TG; cc mailed to plaintiffs)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA
6
7
8
CHASSIDY F. LUCAS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
9
v.
10
11
CASE NO. C11-5350BHS
JOE AND DEBORAH CAMACHO, et
al.,
12
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS
FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTIONS
Defendants.
13
14
This matter comes before the Court on Chassidy F. Lucas, Bianca Lucas and CB
15
Stormwater, LLC’s (“Plaintiffs”) motion for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. 12) and
16
Defendants George and Ali Parker’s (“the Parkers”) motion for a preliminary injunction
17
(Dkt. 24). The Court has reviewed the briefs filed in support of and in opposition to the
18
19
motions and the remainder of the file and hereby denies the motions for the reasons
stated herein.
20
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
21
On May 5, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants Joe and Deborah
22
23
24
25
Camacho, the Parkers, and Angela Stephenson1 alleging various violations of intellectual
property rights. Dkt. 1. Plaintiffs request, among other things, permanent injunctive
relief. Id.
26
27
28
1
Defendants Joe Camacho, Deborah Camacho, and Angela Stephenson refer to
themselves as the “Camacho Defendants.” Dkt. 16 at 1. The Court will also use this reference.
ORDER - 1
On June 16, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a seventy-one-page motion for preliminary
1
2
injunction. Dkt. 12. On July 1, 2011, all of the Defendants responded in separate briefs.
3
See Dkts. 16 & 21. Plaintiffs did not reply.
4
5
On July 8, 2011, the Parkers filed a motion for preliminary injunction. Dkt. 24.
Plaintiffs responded that same day. Dkt. 28. The Parkers did not reply.
6
7
On August 12, 2011, Plaintiffs submitted a thirty-page brief as evidence in
support of their motion for preliminary injunction. Dkt. 48.
8
II. DISCUSSION
9
As a threshold matter, Plaintiffs’ submissions are disorganized, incomprehensible,
10
11
12
13
and violate many of the procedural rules regarding pleadings allowed, forms of motions,
and formatting requirements. Plaintiffs are hereby advised that failure to follow these
procedural rules alone is a ground for denial of any motion submitted to the Court.
14
Plaintiffs can find the Local Civil Rules of this district on the Court’s website at:
15
http://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/referencematerials/localrules.htm.
16
A.
Preliminary Injunction Standard
The court may issue a preliminary injunction where a party establishes (1) a
17
18
likelihood of success on the merits, that (2) it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the
19
absence of preliminary relief, that (3) the balance of hardships tips in its favor, and (4)
20
that the public interest favors an injunction. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell 632
21
F.3d 1127, 1137–38 (9th Cir. 2011); Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct.
22
365, 374 (2008). A party can also satisfy the first and third elements of the test by
23
raising serious questions going to the merits of its case and a balance of hardships that
24
25
26
tips sharply in its favor. Alliance, 632 F.3d at 1137–38.
B.
Plaintiffs’ Motion
Plaintiffs have submitted an unorganized document that consists of multiple
27
exhibits interspersed with factual arguments. See Dkt. 12. On page sixty-nine, Plaintiffs
28
ORDER - 2
1
request preliminary injunctive relief to apparently prevent the Camacho Defendants from
2
making or selling materials that violate Plaintiffs’ intellectual property rights. Id. at 69.
3
The Camacho Defendants assert that it “is impossible to understand what the basis for
4
[Plaintiffs’] entire case against [them] actually consists of – either factually or legally,”
5
and they request that the Court deny the motion for preliminary injunction because
6
Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden. Dkt. 16 at 9. The Court agrees with the
7
Camacho Defendants to the extent that Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden under
8
the standard set forth above. Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion.
9
C.
10
11
The Parkers’ Motion
The Parkers request that the Court enter an order barring Plaintiffs from
contacting the Parkers, their family, their customers, or any distributors. Dkt. 24 at 4.
12
The Parkers appear to request a no-contact order, which is beyond the scope of this
13
lawsuit and is relief more appropriately requested from a state court. Therefore, the
14
15
Court denies the Parkers’ motion.
III. ORDER
16
17
18
19
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ (Dkt. 12) and the Parkers’
(Dkt. 24) motions for preliminary injunctions are DENIED.
DATED this 22nd day of August, 2011.
20
21
A
BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER - 3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?