Ridgeway Unified Courts

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF RIDGEWAY

Searchable full text

12,142 characters extracted

—

RIDGEWAY SUPERIOR COURT NEVPLAYSGAMES and THEAVENGERNICK, on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF RIDGEWAY; largeTitanic2 in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Ridgeway, Defendant. Case No. RSC-CV-743 MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Plaintiff NevPlaysGames and TheAvengerNick (collectively “Plaintiffs”) on behalf of all other similarly situated, hereby move this Court to enter a preliminary injunction enjoining the State of Ridgeway, including its department heads, officers, employees, and agents from enforcing the Modified Sedition Act (“MSA”), as well as any applicable rules and regulations regarding those provisions, against Citizens and Tourists of the State of Ridgeway. In support thereof, Plaintiff’s enter an argument in support of granting the preliminary injunction. ARGUMENT I. THE WINTER STANDARD IS THE CORRECT STANDARD TO ADOPT This Court should grant a preliminary injunction where the plaintiff establishes that (1) they are likely to succeed on the merits; (2) that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tip in their favor; and (4) that an injunction is of the public's interest. See Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). See also Ramirez v. Collier, 142 S. Ct. 1264, 1275 (2022); Benisek v. Lamone, 138 S. Ct. 1942, 1944 (2018) (reaffirming that an injunction should be granted insofar as the plaintiff has satisfactorily demonstrated their grounds as to the four prong test set in Winters.) Although the Winter standard pertains to a specific sphere of preliminary injunctions, this Court should adopt the standard due to the exigent repercussions demonstrated herein this motion. Furthermore, although the test was established in a federal climate, this Court must yield to the federal standard absent any viable alternative. Thus far, no uniform standard has been adopted by any other case in the Superior Court, or the Supreme Court. Because of the infancy of our state, no such cases have been brought before a court, regarding the application for a preliminary injunction. This case is distinct in that sense, and it places a heavier burden upon this court. In fact, this is not the first time that a federal standard has been utilized in our judicial system. Past Superior Court cases have invoked the Twiqbal standard—a portmanteau of both Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)—where the courts have applied the federal pleading standard in cohesion with our rules of civil procedure. See Ridgeway Financial Banking Holdings v. ibm03, RSC-CV-348; see also Tomskipetski5 v. zac2524, RSC-CV-379. The Supreme Court has also adopted similar federal standards for a variety of different matters. See In Re ZuluCenturion, 1 Rid. ____ (2022) (per curiam) (holding that Nken v. Holder, (citation omitted), is the correct four-standard test to determine whether a stay pending appeal is appropriate); Ibid., (holding that Hollingsworth v. Perry, (citation omitted), is the appropriate standard to determine whether mandamus is appropriate); State of Ridgeway v. Lx1nas, 1 Rid. ___ (2022) (holding that the federal Cases and Controversies Clause is analogue to our State’s clause, therefore, the jurisdictional limitations also apply to the Superior Court); Ibid., (holding that eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L. L. C., (citation omitted), is the correct four-factor test to use when considering whether a permanent injunction is appropriate). For the reasons above, we strongly urge this court to accept that the preliminary injunction standard set by Winter, supra, is the correct one to adopt. II. PLAINTIFF SATISFIES ALL PRONGS FROM THE QUADRIPARTITE TEST ESTABLISHED IN WINTER Plaintiffs will demonstrate how they satisfy the quadripartite test set by showing how: (1) they are likely to succeed on the merits; (2) that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tip in their favor; and (4) that an injunction is of the public's interest. Winter, supra, at 20. A. Plaintiff Is Likely To Succeed On The Merits The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” This amendment has been interpreted to protect the right to freedom of association, which includes the right of individuals to maintain close association with separate entities free from state interference. This right has been held to apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Modified Sedition Act, as passed by the State of Ridgeway Senate, appears to violate the First Amendment by restricting the ability of Citizens to hold public office or employment solely based on their affiliation in Pauljkl's United States of America. This type of restriction on association is clearly protected by the First Amendment, and the state of Ridgeway does not have the authority to impose it. Additionally, the Modified Sedition Act appears to be overly broad and vague, which could potentially lead to arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement. The act does not provide clear guidance on what types of affiliations are prohibited, which could result in individuals being punished for engaging in external activities from the State of Ridgeway that are protected by the First Amendment. This could lead to a situation where individuals are fearful to express their views or to engage in external discourse, which would violate their right to freedom of association. Furthermore, the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution states that “In Suits at common law... the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.” This amendment has been interpreted to guarantee the right to access the courts and to seek redress for legal wrongs. This right has been held to apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The modified sedition act, as passed by the State of Ridgeway, appears to violate the Seventh Amendment by restricting the ability of citizens to file an expungement in the courts solely based on their affiliation in Pauljkl's United States of America. This type of restriction on access to the courts is translucently unconstitutional, and the State of Ridgeway does not have the authority to impose it. Therefore, provided that the Modified Sedition Act oversteps countless constitutionally protected rights of Citizens of the State of Ridgeway that are protected under the 14th Amendment, the Plaintiff is substantially likely to prevail on the merits. B. Plaintiff Is Likely To Suffer Irreparable Harm Absent A Preliminary Injunction The plaintiff’s, who bring this suit on behalf of all others similarly situated, face the repercussions of potentially losing their employment, and their basic liberties solely due to their affiliation in Pauljkl’s United States of America. Whereas these rights have been deliberately stripped in a blatant disregard of their constitutionally protected rights, there is a substantial liability that the Plaintiff’s, and all others in a similarly situated position, will be removed from their positions without an adequate basis. We’re looking at a case where a consequential bill is in question, and without proper confrontation in a preliminary phase of this bill, there is a substantial risk to the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated of potential termination, blacklists, and denial of basic liberties secured under the Constitution of the United States. By stripping individuals of their rights without an adequate basis, the defendant is creating a situation where certain individuals may be unfairly targeted or discriminated against. This could lead to a situation where individuals are unable to participate fully in society or to enjoy the same opportunities as others, which would be a violation of their constitutional rights. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to establish that rights have been deliberately stripped in a blatant disregard of the Plaintiff’s, and countless others’ constitutionally protected rights, and that there is a substantial liability that the Plaintiff's, and all others in a similarly situated position, will be removed from their positions without an adequate basis. The approach of a preliminary injunction will assist in the ensurance that the rights of the Plaintiff's and others are protected, and will help to prevent widespread discrimination and injustice. C. The Balance Of Hardships and Equities Tip In The Plaintiff’s Favor In addressing the Balance of Hardships and Equities, we must demonstrate that if this injunction is denied, the harm to the movant outweighs the harm to the respondent if the injunction is granted. As previously established, there are imminent risks and factors involved in this case, factors that can harm the Plaintiff's, and all other similarly situated individuals' professional careers, constitutionally protected rights, and countless other secured liberties that are stripped by the provisions of the Modified Sedition Act. Whereas this injunction is granted, the bill is not permanently enjoined from enforcement, and instead is temporary, which will not harm the state. If the injunction is denied, however, the continuance of an overt deprivation of constitutionally protected rights are further jeopardized. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to note that the repercussions against the State fall short of harmful, and only temporarily suspend the enforcement of the bill. Contrary to the bill still being enforced and the Plaintiff’s being stripped from their positions, which constitutes more than substantial harm. D. The Preliminary Injunction Is Indisputably In The Public Interest The sphere of this case does not strictly revolve around the Plaintiff’s, it revolves around the conditions that countless others are similarly situated within. The public interest is served when the State of Ridgeway is held accountable for violating the rights of its citizens. By granting this preliminary injunction, the Court can take the appropriate steps to ensure that the State of Ridgeway is not able to continue violating the rights of Citizens, pending a true and just outcome of this matter. This can help to protect the rights of individuals and to prevent further harm from occurring. Additionally, the public interest is also served when the government is required to adhere to the rule of law. By granting this preliminary injunction, the Court can help to ensure that the government is held to the same legal standards as everyone else. This can assist in the approach to promote fairness and justice, both constitutionally protected, and can help to ensure that the government is not able to act above the law. Therefore, a preliminary injunction is indisputably in the public interest for this case where the State of Ridgeway has restricted the constitutionally protected rights of Citizens. This approach will help to protect the rights of individuals, to hold the government accountable for its actions pending the outcome of this matter. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth in the brief in support of their Motion for preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs respectfully request that their Motion forPreliminary Injunction be granted, and that this Court enjoin the State of Ridgeway, including its department heads, officers, employees, and agents from enforcing the Modified Sedition Act, as well as any applicable rules and regulations regarding those provisions, against Citizens and Tourists of the State of Ridgeway pending the outcome of the above-styled matter. Respectfully Submitted. STICKZA Managing Partner COHN, CICERO, & GOODRICH, LLC Suite 3B, Palmer Apartments Palmer, RW 33328 D: stick#0677 E: [email protected] DAVIDLCLARKE Senior Associate COHN, CICERO, & GOODRICH, LLC Suite 3B, Palmer Apartments Palmer, RW 33328 D: dave .#9695 E: [email protected] TURNTABLE5000 Counsel 10 000 HOLYROMANRYAN Advocate 10 000 Counsel for the Plaintiff

NevPlaysGames_v._largeTitanic2_Motion_for_Preliminary_Injunction.pdf

Original document

Searchable full text

Document record