Lucrezia Borgia
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 6 Lip 2022
Quick summary of Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction:
The judge cites broadly accepted requirements for injunctive relief, in particular "the need for speedy and urgent action to protect plaintiff’s rights before a case can be resolved on its merits" and a "substantial likelihood" of preventing "immediate and irreparable harm".
He discusses how these requirements are not met, in particular:
"Plaintiff waited roughly five months to file her motion for preliminary injunction and provided no convincing justification for the delay" and
"[...] albeit very distressing, the Video at the center of this dispute is online. Plaintiff acknowledges as much in her Amended Complaint — citing several websites that are currently hosting or have hosted, and then removed, the Video. [...] as [Plaintiff's] counsel stated at the TRO hearing, 'the damage has already been done'"
"There is, then, no irreparable injury — a need for 'speedy and urgent action' — that would trigger the issuance of a preliminary injunction here."
Other noteworthy quotes:
The judge cites broadly accepted requirements for injunctive relief, in particular "the need for speedy and urgent action to protect plaintiff’s rights before a case can be resolved on its merits" and a "substantial likelihood" of preventing "immediate and irreparable harm".
He discusses how these requirements are not met, in particular:
"Plaintiff waited roughly five months to file her motion for preliminary injunction and provided no convincing justification for the delay" and
"[...] albeit very distressing, the Video at the center of this dispute is online. Plaintiff acknowledges as much in her Amended Complaint — citing several websites that are currently hosting or have hosted, and then removed, the Video. [...] as [Plaintiff's] counsel stated at the TRO hearing, 'the damage has already been done'"
"There is, then, no irreparable injury — a need for 'speedy and urgent action' — that would trigger the issuance of a preliminary injunction here."
Other noteworthy quotes:
- "Plaintiff’s counsel then proceeded to explain at the April 4, 2025, hearing that, 'the [ongoing] issue is that we keep receiving evidence of destruction of evidence. We are trying to compile enough evidence to file a motion for spoliation[.]' [...] It is now October of 2025 and there is no such motion on the docket."
- "We do not doubt Plaintiff’s testimony that she is distraught because of these events [...]. To the contrary; we find her testimony fully credible in this regard."
- "[...] because Plaintiff’s assertion of federal question jurisdiction hinges on the applicability of 15 U.S.C. § 6851, it is possible that we do not have subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s case."