Cluster 511712

If the balance of harm tips decidedly in toward the plaintiff, then the plaintiff need not show as robust a likelihood of success on the merits as when the balance tips less decidedly.” State of Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, 856 F.2d 1384, 1389 (9th Cir.1988) (citing Aguirre v. Chula Vista Sanitary Service & Sani-Tainer, Inc., 542 F.2d 779, 781 (9th Cir.1976)).

State of Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, 856 F.2d 1384, 1389 (9th Cir.1988).

See Johnson v. Cal. State Bd. of Accountancy, 72 F.3d 1427, 1430 (9th Cir.1995); Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of Am., Inc., 897 F.2d 1572, 1575 (Fed.Cir.1990) (discussing Ninth Circuit law); State of Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, 856 F.2d 1384, 1388 (9th Cir.1988); Los Angeles Mem’l Coliseum Comm’n v. Nat’l Football League, 634 F.2d 1197 , 1200 (9th Cir.1980).

Alaska, 856 F.2d at 1389.

See Johnson v. Cal. State Bd. of Accountancy, 72 F.3d 1427, 1430 (9th Cir.1995); Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of Am., Inc., 897 F.2d 1572, 1575 (Fed.Cir.1990) (discussing Ninth Circuit law); State of Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, 856 F.2d 1384, 1388 (9th Cir.1988); Los Angeles Mem’l Coliseum Comm’n v. Nat’l Football League, 634 F.2d 1197 , 1200 (9th Cir.1980).

Accordingly, “[i]f the balance of harm tips decidedly toward the plaintiff, then the plaintiff need not show as robust a likelihood of success on the merits as when the balance tips less decidedly.” State of Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, 856 F.2d 1384, 1389 (9th Cir.1988).

State of Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, 856 F.2d 1384, 1389 (9th Cir.1988).

State of Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, 856 F.2d 1384, 1389 (9th Cir.1988).

Accordingly, a party is entitled to preliminary injunctive relief provided it demonstrates “probable success on the merits” and a “possibility of irreparable injury,” or if it demonstrates “a fair chance of success on the merits (%.e., serious questions are raised)” and the “balance of hardships tips sharply in their favor.” Confederated Tribes & Bands of Yakama v. Baldrige, 898 F.Supp. 1477, 1483 (W.D.Wash.1995), quoting, State of Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, 856 F.…

If the balance of harm tips decidedly toward the plaintiff, then the plaintiff need not show as robust a likelihood of success on the merits as when the balance tips less decidedly.” State of Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, 856 F.2d 1384, 1389 (9th Cir.1988) (quoting Aguirre v. Chula Vista Sanitary Serv., 542 F.2d 779 (9th Cir.1976)).

State of Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, 856 F.2d 1384, 1390 (9th Cir.1988) (“Venetie I ”); Burlington Northern R.R.

State of Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, 856 F.2d 1384, 1390 (9th Cir.1988) ("Venetie I "); Burlington Northern R.R.

These formulations are not different tests but represent two points on a “single continuum,” such that “[i]f the balance of harm tips decidedly toward the plaintiff, the plaintiff need not show as robust a likelihood of success on the merits as when the balance tips less decidedly.” Venetie, 856 F.2d at 1389 (citations omitted).

Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Coalition for Economic Equity, 950 F.2d 1401 , 1410 (9th Cir.1991), ce rt. denied, 503 U.S. 985 , 112 S.Ct. 1670 , 118 L.Ed.2d 390 (1992). *967 These formulations axe not different tests but represent two points on a “single continuum,” such that “[i]f the balance of harm tips decidedly toward the plaintiff, the plaintiff need not show as robust a likelihood of success on the merits as when the balance tips less decidedly.” Venetie, 856 F.2d at 1…

If the balance of harm tips decidedly toward the plaintiff, then the plaintiff need not show as robust a likelihood of success on the merits as when the balance tips less decidedly.” State of Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, 856 F.2d 1384, 1389 (9th Cir.1988) (internal citations omitted).

State of Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, 856 F.2d 1384, 1389 (9th Cir.1988).

Denial Of The Villages’ Motion For A Preliminary Injunction There are essentially two factors for a district court to consider before ruling on a motion for a preliminary injunction: “The likelihood of the plaintiffs success on the merits; and, the relative balance of potential hardships to the plaintiff, defendant, and public.” State v. Native Village of Venetie, 856 F.2d 1384, 1389 (9th Cir.1988).

Denial Of The Villages' Motion For A Preliminary Injunction 16 There are essentially two factors for a district court to consider before ruling on a motion for a preliminary injunction: "The likelihood of the plaintiff's success on the merits; and, the relative balance of potential hardships to the plaintiff, defendant, and public." State v. Native Village of Venetie, 856 F.2d 1384, 1389 (9th Cir.1988).

The alternatives illuminate what is really a single continuum of concern which evaluates two factors that must always be considered: “The likelihood of the plaintiffs success on the merits; and the relative balance of potential hardships to the plaintiff, defendant, and public.” State of Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, 856 F.2d 1384, 1389 (9th Cir.1988).

Yukon Flats School Dist. v. Native Village of Venetie, 856 F.2d 1384, 1389 (9th Cir.1988).

State of Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, 856 F.2d 1384, 1388 (9th Cir.1988) (citing Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Comm’n v. National Football League, 634 F.2d 1197 , 1200 (9th Cir.1980)).

Yukon Flats School Disk v. Native Village of Venetie, 856 F.2d 1384, 1388 (9th Cir.1988) (citing National Farmers, 471 U.S. at 851, 856 , 105 S.Ct. at 2451, 2453 , and LaPlante, 480 U.S. at 14-19 , 107 S.Ct. at 975-78 ).

Native Village of Venetie, 856 F.2d at 1387.

Native Village of Venetie, 856 F.2d at 1387.

In State of Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, 856 F.2d 1384, 1387 (9th Cir.1988), the Court stated: [Tjribal status [is] arguable in the event of IRA [Indian Reorganization Act] organization. * >jc # sfc * >j< If the IRA does not settle the matter, the inquiry would shift to whether [the Indian group] has been otherwise recognized as a tribe by the federal government.

Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, 856 F.2d at 1389.

Yukon Flats School Dist. v. Native Village of Venetie, 856 F.2d 1384, 1388-89 (9th Cir.1988) (citations omitted).

Rather, the Pelican test is the ultimate test of whether a particular area is a “dependent Indian community.” “[T]he ultimate conclusion as to whether an Indian community is Indian country is quite factually dependent.” Village of Venetie, 856 F.2d at 1391.

The Ninth Circuit has noted that the public interest “is but one more interest to be balanced along with the interests of the parties.” State of Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, 856 F.2d 1384, 1388-89 (9th Cir.1988) (citations omitted).

See id. 4 .

See id. 8 .

See id. 9 .

See Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, 856 F.2d 1384, 1389 (9th Cir.1988).

See id.

See Village of Venetie, 856 F.2d at 1389.

See Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, 856 F.2d 1384 , 1389 (9th Cir. 1988).

See id.

See Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, 856 F.2d 1384 , 1389 (9th Cir.1988).

United States v. Martine , 442 F.2d 1022 , 1023-24 (10th Cir. 1971); see State of Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie , 856 F.2d 1384 , 1390-91 (9th Cir. 1988); United States v. Azure , 801 F.2d 336 , 338-39 (8th Cir. 1986); United States v. Levesque , 681 F.2d 75 , 77-78 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1089 , 103 S.Ct. 574 , 74 L.Ed.2d 936 (1982).

See Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, 856 F.2d 1384 , 1389. (9th Cir.1988).

See Venetie I, 856 F.2d at 1391 .

See Venetie I, 856 F.2d at 1391 .

See Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, 856 F.2d 1384 , 1389 (9th Cir.1988) (plaintiff must show likelihood of success on the merits to obtain pendente lite relief); Enterprise Int'l, Inc. v. Corporacion Estatal Petrolera Ecuatoriana, 762 F.2d 464, 470-71 (5th Cir.1985) (preliminary injunction may not issue unless plaintiff shows a reasonable probability of proving the court's jurisdiction over the defendant).

See Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, 856 F.2d 1384 , 1389 (9th Cir.1988).

See State of Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, 856 F.2d 1384, 1387 (9th Cir.1988).

See State of Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, 856 F.2d 1384, 1387 (9th Cir.1988).

United States v. Martine, 442 F.2d 1022, 1023-24 (10th Cir.1971); see State of Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, 856 F.2d 1384, 1390-91 (9th Cir.1988); United States v. Azure, 801 F.2d 336, 338-39 (8th Cir.1986); United States v. Levesque, 681 F.2d 75, 77-78 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1089 , 103 S.Ct. 574 , 74 L.Ed.2d 936 (1982).

United States v. Martine, 442 F.2d 1022, 1023-24 (10th Cir.1971); see State of Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, 856 F.2d 1384, 1390-91 (9th Cir.1988); United States v. Azure, 801 F.2d 336, 338-39 (8th Cir.1986); United States v. Levesque, 681 F.2d 75, 77-78 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1089 , 103 S.Ct. 574 , 74 L.Ed.2d 936 (1982).

See State of Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, 856 F.2d 1384, 1387 (9th Cir.1988).

See State of Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, 856 F.2d 1384, 1387 (9th Cir.1988).