Replies

Here is a copy and paste of California state law on the subject. I know that doesn't apply, but any other standard really doesn't make sense.

"While the statute makes no reference to the traditional equitable concern of "balancing equities," it is a crucial factor in the judge's determination: i.e., the court must exercise its discretion "in favor of the party most likely to be injured . . . If denial of an injunction would result in great harm to the plaintiff, and the defendants would suffer little harm if it were granted, then it is an abuse of discretion to fail to grant the preliminary injunction." [> Robbins v. Sup.Ct. (County of Sacramento) (1985) 38 Cal.3d 199, 205, 211 Cal.Rptr. 398, 401 (emphasis added)]"

Yes, this standard is similar to the balancing test which the judge must apply as PART of his decision making here. But without likelihood of success based on a legal cause of action, the balancing test makes no sense.

For example, a local store I love to frequent is going out of business. I and the employees go to court for an order to stop it, based on them losing their jobs and me losing a great place to shop. Maybe we will suffer greater harm than the chain will if it can't close this one store right away. But unless we can convince the judge we have a legal basis for our lawsuit and we are likely to win in the end, he isn't going to order the store to stay open. Balancing harms makes no sense unless the plaintiff has a legal right to assert.