Docstoc

Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission v. NFL

Document Sample
Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission v. NFL Powered By Docstoc
					Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission v. NFL, 634 F.2d 1197, 1980 Issue Reasoning
Court erred in issuing injunction w/o showing of irreparable injury. No threat of injury – no proof of Δ’s propensity. Irreparable Injury Even if there was a significant threat of injury, it was neither found nor shown to be irreparable. Monetary injury is not normally considered irreparable. o Lost revenues is compensable by damage award. Erroneous legal premise that the type of injury court identified was irreparable and abused its discretion in granting injunction. Coliseum did not content that loss of the Raiders threatened to put it out of bus. o Undisputed that it consinuted to have strong attractions. o Did not make the requisite showing for irreparable harm. Balancing Hardships Court failed to identify harms which a prelim injunction might cause to Δs and to weigh these against П’s threatened injury. Injunction was granted although the court considered the question on the merits to be close without finding a balance of harms favoring П.

440

Rule
A preliminary injunction is not a final decision on the merits. Function of prelim injunction is to preserve the status quo ante litem [state of affairs before litigation]. Criteria for granting: (1) a strong likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the possibility of irreparable injury to PP if the preliminary relief is not granted, (3) a balance of hardships favoring the П, and (4) advancement of the public interest (in certain cases). In 9th Circuit, the moving party may meet its burden by demonstrating either (1) a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury or (2) that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in its favor. (3) These are not separate tests, but the outer reaches of a single continuum. Stds for granting a preliminary injunction impose a duty on the court to o balance the interests of all parties and o weigh the damage to each, o mindful of the moving party's burden to show the i. possibility of irreparable injury to itself and ii. the probability of success on the merits.

Facts
The Oakland Raiders wished to move to the LA Memorial Coliseum. However the NFL did not agree without first applying rule 4.3 of the NFL Bylaws which required a vote on the matter. The Coliseum sued to enjoin the NFL from applying rule 4.3.

Held Proc П argues Δ argues

Reversed. DC granted the injunction. o П unlikely to show that the balance of hardships tipped sharply in its favor. Injury = Lost revenues. Would loose only opportunity to obtain a professional football tenant.

Lakeshore Hills, Inc. v. ADCOX, 413 N.E. 548, 1980 Issue Reasoning
Held Proc П argues Δ argues

447

Rule

Facts

o


				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:145
posted:5/17/2009
language:English
pages:2