X hits on this document

Word document

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION - page 24 / 43

87 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

24 / 43

IV

Balance of Interests

Defendants contend plaintiff failed to establish that the denial of a preliminary injunction would cause more harm to the public than that suffered by defendants if the injunction were issued.  According to defendants, the injunction “enjoins defendants and hundreds of unidentified other individuals from doing the most normal things in a wide swath of their own neighborhood:  meeting with or being in the presence of anyone else on the secret list of Broderick Boys gang members; drinking an alcoholic beverage in a bar or restaurant or even on a porch or front yard (if it were deemed ‘in public’); being out of their own home or apartment after 10:00 p.m. or before 6:00 a.m. the following day any day of the week . . . .”  Defendants argue this clearly outweighs “the imagined harm” the residents of the Safety Zone would suffer if the interim relief were denied.  

We are not persuaded.  There is nothing “imagined’ in the harm the residents of the Safety Zone are likely to suffer if the preliminary injunction were not issued.  As Investigator Villanueva explained, the Broderick Boys “have consistently been engaged in violent gang crime and property crime in the residential areas of the Safety Zone for years.”  According to Villanueva, “[i]nnocent civilians are frequent victims of violent crimes committed by Broderick Boys in the Safety Zone,” and “Broderick Boys have demonstrated that they will prey on innocent people in order to instill fear in the community and/or

24

Document info
Document views87
Page views87
Page last viewedMon Dec 05 23:12:25 UTC 2016
Pages43
Paragraphs202
Words10151

Comments