2:25-cv-575-APG-BNW MOTION HEARING - ROUGH DRAFT - DO NOT CITE!!!
81 MR. HAVEMANN: So the last -- I'm happy to answer
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
any other questions. The final thing I would say is just, you know, the Court is aware of the posture of this case. We're at a TRO. The question is not, as you indicated, whether we will ultimately succeed; it is whether we have shown a likelihood of success and irreparable harm and the public interest is in our favor. I respectfully submit, the statutory language, it doesn't get much clearer than this. The precedent doesn't get much clearer than this. There is at least a likelihood of success, such that it would not be equitable to subject Kalshi to the truly extreme harm that it would suffer if it had to comply during the pendency of the litigation over this matter, so we urge the Court to grant the motion.
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
THE COURT: Thank you. Anything further? MR. HAVEMANN: No. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Let me go off
the record for just a second.
(Off-the-record discussion.) THE COURT: As the parties all know, the test for
qualifying for preliminary injunction is the four factor test under Winter vs. Natural Resources Defense Counsel . The party must demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, a likelihood of irreparable harm, that the balance of hardships favors the movant, and an injunction is in the public interest.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Judy K. Moore, RMR, CRR
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs