Case 3:25-cv-06162-JSC Document 35 Filed 09/04/25 Page 17 of 34
1
from confusion resulting from Kalshi’s false and misleading marketing practices. Granting an
2
injunction here is also necessary to protect the Tribes’ ability to regulate class III gaming activity
3
on the Tribes’ Indian lands, and consequently tribal sovereignty and economic self-sufficiency. III. STANDARD FOR GRANTING A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
4
5
To establish entitlement to preliminary injunctive relief, the moving party “[1] must
6
establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm
7
in the absence of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4] that
8
an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. NRDC, Inc. , 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). In cases such
9
as this one, where governments—the Tribes—are seeking an injunction, “these last two factors
10
merge.” Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. Jewell , 747 F.3d 1073, 1092 (9th Cir. 2014). See also Roman v.
11
Wolf , 977 F.3d 935, 940-41 (9th Cir. 2020) (“Where the government is a party to a case in which
12
a preliminary injunction is sought, the balance of the equities and public interest factors merge.”);
13
Fraihat v. United States Immigration & Customs Enf’t , 16 F.4th 613, 657 (9th Cir. 2021) (“When
14
the government is a party, the balance of equities factor merges with the public interest
15
consideration.”); City & Cty. of S.F. v. Trump , No. 25-cv-01350-WHO, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
16
78603, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2025) (“As government entities are parties to this case, the final
17
two factors merge.”); Phong Thanh Nguyen v. Scott , No. 2:25-cv-01398, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
18
142875, at *6 (W.D. Wash. July 25, 2025) (“The final two Winter factors, which involve balancing
19
the equities and considering the public interest, merge when the Government is a party to a case.”).
20
“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter
21
v. NRDC, Inc. , 555 U.S. at 24 (citing Munaf v. Geren , 553 U.S. 674, 689–90 (2008)). “In each
22
case, courts ‘must balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each
23
party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief.’” Id . (quoting Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill.
24
of Gambell, AK , 480 U.S. 531, 542 (1987)). “The function of an injunction is to afford preventive
25
relief, not to redress alleged wrongs which have been committed already.” Lacassagne v. Chapuis ,
26
144 U.S. 119, 124 (1892). Stated differently, the general purpose of a preliminary injunction is to
27
protect the rights of the parties pending final determination of the action after a full hearing. Lopez
28
8 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES [ Case No.: 25-cv-06162-JSC]
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs