United States District Court, D. Nevada
JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.
Presently before the court is a motion for preliminary injunction filed by plaintiffs George and Felecitas Yeske (hereinafter "plaintiffs"). (Doc. #5). Defendants did not file a response, and the deadline to respond has now passed.
Plaintiffs filed the instant action to enforce an option to purchase agreement, alleging federal RICO claims and violations of state law for racketeering, deceptive sales practices, and mortgage fraud. (Doc. #1-1).
Plaintiffs claim that defendants are attempting to evict plaintiffs through "a pattern of deceit and harmful actions." (Doc. #5). They allege that defendants are circumventing the parties' lease agreement by providing a false address to send lease payments.
Plaintiffs assert that they sent their August rent payment to defendants at the abovementioned address and that it was returned. According to plaintiffs, defendants now seek to improperly evict plaintiffs based on their failure to pay the August rent. (Doc. #5). Plaintiffs claim that defendants' efforts at eviction are retaliatory, based on plaintiffs' filing of the present action. (Doc. #5).
In the instant motion, plaintiffs ask the court to order defendants to "cease and desist any further actions" against plaintiffs resulting from defendants' "deliberate and malicious acts of intimidation and violation of the law in general." (Doc. #5). Plaintiffs also seek sanctions against defendants in the amount of $2, 000 for expenses incurred in defending against defendants' claims. (Doc. #5).
II. Legal Standard
Federal rule of civil procedure 65 provides that the court may issue a preliminary injunction on notice to the adverse party. Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(a)(1). A preliminary injunction seeks to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm from occurring before a judgment is issued. Textile Unlimited Inc. v. BMH & Co., 240 F.3d 781, 786 (9th Cir. 2001).
The Supreme Court has stated that courts must consider the following elements in determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction: (1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) likelihood of irreparable injury if preliminary relief is not granted; (3) balance of hardships; and
(4) advancement of the public interest. Winter v. N.R.D.C., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The test is conjunctive, meaning the party seeking the injunction must satisfy each element.
Additionally, post- Winter, the ninth circuit has maintained its serious question and sliding scale tests. See Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). "Under this approach, the elements of the preliminary injunction test are balanced, so that a stronger showing of one element may offset a weaker showing of another." Id.
"Serious questions going to the merits and a balance of hardships that tips sharply towards the plaintiff can support issuance of a preliminary injunction, so long as the plaintiff also shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury ...