Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 199 views

    Williams Broadcasting 21

    Uploaded by

    Ethan Gates
    The court denied the plaintiff's application for a temporary restraining order against the defendant. The plaintiff sought to prevent the defendant from licensing or broadcasting a radio show involving certain personalities in the Sacramento area, claiming this would breach their 2005 agreement. However, the court determined the 2005 personal services contract cited by the plaintiff was unenforceable under California law because more than 7 years had elapsed since it was executed. As the plaintiff failed to show the contract was enforceable or that there were serious questions on the merits, the motion for a temporary restraining order was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Williams Broadcasting 21

    Uploaded by

    Ethan Gates
    199 views3 pages
    The court denied the plaintiff's application for a temporary restraining order against the defendant. The plaintiff sought to prevent the defendant from licensing or broadcasting a radio show involving certain personalities in the Sacramento area, claiming this would breach their 2005 agreement. However, the court determined the 2005 personal services contract cited by the plaintiff was unenforceable under California law because more than 7 years had elapsed since it was executed. As the plaintiff failed to show the contract was enforceable or that there were serious questions on the merits, the motion for a temporary restraining order was denied.

    Original Description:

    Court document 21

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The court denied the plaintiff's application for a temporary restraining order against the defendant. The plaintiff sought to prevent the defendant from licensing or broadcasting a radio show involving certain personalities in the Sacramento area, claiming this would breach their 2005 agreement. However, the court determined the 2005 personal services contract cited by the plaintiff was unenforceable under California law because more than 7 years had elapsed since it was executed. As the plaintiff failed to show the contract was enforceable or that there were serious questions on the merits, the motion for a temporary restraining order was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    199 views3 pages

    Williams Broadcasting 21

    Uploaded by

    Ethan Gates
    The court denied the plaintiff's application for a temporary restraining order against the defendant. The plaintiff sought to prevent the defendant from licensing or broadcasting a radio show involving certain personalities in the Sacramento area, claiming this would breach their 2005 agreement. However, the court determined the 2005 personal services contract cited by the plaintiff was unenforceable under California law because more than 7 years had elapsed since it was executed. As the plaintiff failed to show the contract was enforceable or that there were serious questions on the merits, the motion for a temporary restraining order was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    Case 2:14-cv-01523-GEB-AC Document 20 Filed 06/27/14 Page 1 of 3

    7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

    10 ENTERCOM CALIFORNIA LLC No. 2:14-cv-01523-GEB-AC


    (F/K/A ENTERCOM SACRAMENTO,
    11 LLC),
    ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR
    12 Plaintiff, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
    13 v.
    14 WILLIAMS BROADCASTING
    INCORPORATED,
    15
    Defendant.
    16

    17

    18 Plaintiff moves ex parte for a temporary restraining

    19 order (TRO)

    20 preventing and enjoining Defendant from


    licensing, offering, selling, performing,
    21 broadcasting, or otherwise providing the
    right to broadcast the Rob, Arnie & Dawn
    22 Show or any other radio program involving
    its personalities in the terrestrial
    23 Sacramento area to any party other than
    Plaintiff or otherwise breaching Section 25
    24 of the 2005 Program Agreement between
    Plaintiff and Defendant.
    25

    26 (Pl.s Amend. Mot. for TRO (Pl.s TRO) 1:6-10, ECF No. 17

    27 (emphasis added).)

    28 The standard for issuing a preliminary injunction is


    1
    Case 2:14-cv-01523-GEB-AC Document 20 Filed 06/27/14 Page 2 of 3

    1 the same as the standard for issuing a [TRO]. Cal. Indep. Sys.

    2 Operator Corp. v. Reliant Energy Servs., Inc., 181 F. Supp. 2d

    3 1111, 1126 (E.D. Cal. 2001). Therefore, [a] motion for a [TRO]

    4 requires that a plaintiff show that he is likely to succeed on

    5 the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the

    6 absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips

    7 in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.

    8 League of Wilderness Defenders/Blue Mountains Biodiversity

    9 Project v. Connaughton, No. 13-35653, 2014 WL 1814172, at * 1

    10 (9th Cir. May 8, 2014) (quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def.

    11 Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). Alternatively, if a

    12 plaintiff can only show that there are serious questions going

    13 to the meritsa lesser showing than likelihood of success on

    14 the meritsthen a [TRO] may still issue if the balance of

    15 hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff's favor, [there is a

    16 likelihood of irreparable injury, and the injunction is in the

    17 public interest]. Shell Offshore, Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc., 709

    18 F.3d 1281, 1291 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Alliance for the Wild

    19 Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011)).

    20 Plaintiff argues its motion is brought to enforce a


    21 2005 contract for personal services of a unique nature,

    22 specifically enforceable by injunction according to . . .

    23 Cal[ifornia] Labor Code [section] 2855(a). (Pl.s TRO 9:21-23.)

    24 California Labor Code section 2885(a) prescribes: [A] contract

    25 to render personal service . . . may not be enforced against the

    26 employee beyond seven years from the commencement of service


    27 under it. Plaintiff alleges in its First Amended Complaint that

    28 Plaintiff and Defendant entered into the referenced contract on


    2
    Case 2:14-cv-01523-GEB-AC Document 20 Filed 06/27/14 Page 3 of 3

    1 June 30, 2005. (First Amend. Compl. 14, ECF No. 16.) Nearly

    2 nine years have elapsed since that date. Therefore, Plaintiff has

    3 not shown that the contract, which it characterizes as a personal

    4 services contract, is enforceable under the law on which it

    5 relies. See De la Hoya v. Top Rank, Inc., No. 00-cv-9230-WMB,

    6 2001 WL 34624886, at *14 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2001) ([Plaintiff]

    7 has been continuously obligated to provide such services to

    8 [defendant] for more than seven years. To bind him to [defendant]

    9 any longer would violate [California Labor Code] section

    10 2855(a).). Because of this failure, Plaintiff has not shown

    11 there is a serious question[] going to the merits. Alliance for

    12 the Wild Rockies, 632 F.3d at 1135.

    13 Therefore, Plaintiffs motion for a TRO is DENIED.

    14 Dated: June 27, 2014

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20
    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26
    27

    28
    3

    You might also like