Case 3:25-cv-06162-JSC Document 35 Filed 09/04/25 Page 23 of 34
1
business from the Tribes’ casinos to Kalshi. Declaration of Jason Ramos in Support of Plaintiffs’
Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (“Ramos Decl.”) ¶¶ 40, 41; see also Southland Sod Farms ,
2
3
108 F.3d at 1139 (“the deception is material, in that it is likely to influence the purchasing
4
decision [and] the plaintiff has been or is likely to be injured as a result of the false statement. .
5
. by direct diversion of sales from itself to defendant . . . .”). Because Kalshi’s advertisements are
6
facially false, false by necessary implication, and mislead consumers, the Tribes are likely to
7
prevail on the merits of their Lanham Act claim.
8
b.
Irreparable Harm
9
“In every case in which the plaintiff wants a preliminary injunction he must show that he
10
has ‘no adequate remedy at law,’ and . . . that he will suffer ‘irreparable harm’ if the preliminary
injunction is not granted.” Roland Mach. Co. v. Dresser Indus., Inc. , 749 F.2d 380, 386 (7th Cir.
11
12
1984). “Only if he will suffer irreparable harm in the interim—that is, harm that cannot be
13
prevented or fully rectified by the final judgment after trial—can he get a preliminary injunction.”
Id . “[E]conomic injury alone does not support a finding of irreparable harm, because such injury
14
can be remedied by a damage award.” Arcsoft, Inc. v. Cyberlink Corp. , 153 F. Supp. 3d 1057, 1071
15
(N.D. Cal. 2015) (quoting Rent-A-Ctr., Inc. v. Canyon Television & Appliance Rental, Inc. , 944
16
17
F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1991)).
18
It is well-settled that impermissible interference with tribal self-government and,
19
necessarily, tribal sovereignty, constitutes irreparable harm. Indian tribes are irreparably harmed
by unlawful deprivations of their jurisdictional authority. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray
20
Rsrv. v. Utah , 790 F.3d 1000, 1005 (10th Cir. 2015) (the Tenth Circuit has “repeatedly stated that
21
22
such an invasion of tribal sovereignty [enforcing state law on Indian land] can constitute
irreparable injury”); Tohono O’Odham Nation v. Schwartz , 837 F. Supp. 1024, 1034 (D. Ariz.
23
24
1993) (“The harm to the Nation’s sovereignty cannot be remedied by any other relief other than
an injunction precluding the . . . action from proceeding.”); Comanche Nation v. United States ,
25
26
393 F. Supp. 2d 1196, 1205–1206, 1210–1211 (W.D. Okla. 2005). Encroachments on tribal
27
sovereignty constitute an irreparable injury because the harm to tribal self-government is “not
28
14 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES [ Case No.: 25-cv-06162-JSC]
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs