National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Inc. et al v. Henry et al, No. 4:2007cv00613 - Document 33 (N.D. Okla. 2007)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER by Judge James H Payne ; denying 5 Motion for Preliminary Injunction (pll, Dpty Clk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Inc. et al v. Henry et al Case 4:07-cv-00613-JHP-FHM Document 33 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 10/31/2007 Page 1 of 2 33 Doc. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA NATIONAL COALITION OF LATINO CLERGY, INC; CONLAMIC-OKLAHOMA; CHURCH EFICAZ; CHURCH PIEDRA ANGULAR; T-MAC CONSTRUCTION, INC.; CHILINO S RESTAURANT; JOHN DOE ONE; JOHN DOE TWO; JOHN DOE THREE; JOHN DOE FOUR; JOHN DOE FIVE; JOHN DOE SIX; JOHN DOE SEVEN; JANE DOE ONE; JANE DOE TWO; JANE DOE THREE; JANE DOE FOUR; JANE DOE FIVE, et al. Plaintiffs, v. BRAD HENRY, Governor of the State of Oklahoma, and DREW EDMONDSON, Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma. Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 07-CV-613-JHP ORDER AND OPINION Before the Court are Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Docket No. 5]; Defendants Response to the Motion [Docket No. 26]; and Plaintiffs Reply to the Response [Docket No. 27]. A hearing was held on October 31, 2007 where the Court heard argument on the Motion. For the reasons set forth herein, the Motion is DENIED. A party seeking a preliminary injunction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 bears the burden of establishing: (1) the movant will suffer irreparable injury unless the injunction issues; (2) the threatened injury ... outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party; (3) the injunction, if issued, would not be adverse to the public interest; and (4) there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. Dockets.Justia.com Case 4:07-cv-00613-JHP-FHM Document 33 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 10/31/2007 Page 2 of 2 Heidman v. South Salt Lake City, 348 F.3d 1182, 1188 (10th Cir. 2003). It is the movant's burden to establish that each of these factors tips in his or her favor. Id. at 1188-1189 (internal citations omitted)(emphasis added). Additionally, the Court is mindful that a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, and [one that] should not be issued unless the movant s right to relief is clear and unequivocal. Id. at 1188 (quoting Kikumura v. Hurley, 242 F.3d 950, 955 (10th Cir. 2001)). In this case, Plaintiffs had the burden of establishing all four prongs of the preliminary injunction test. Plaintiffs, however, put on no evidence at the hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction.1 Plaintiffs instead simply argued the fourth prong of the four-pronged preliminary injunction test: likelihood of success on the merits. In light of Plaintiffs failure to introduce evidence in support of their motion, and in light of Plaintiffs limited argument in support of their motion, the Court cannot conclude that the Plaintiffs right to a preliminary injunction has been clearly and unequivocally established. Therefore, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of proof, and their Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is hereby DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 Evidence that goes beyond the unverified allegations of the pleadings and motion papers must be presented to support or oppose a motion for a preliminary injunction. 11A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, ยง 2949 at 214; see also Bossert v. Springfield Group, Inc., F. Supp. 56, 58 (D.C. Ohio 1984).
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
