Filed April 13, 2015
This Court should deny Plaintiffs’ request for mandatory injunction because the facts and law do not “‘clearly favor the moving party.’” Stanley, 13 F.3d at 1320 (quoting Martinez, 544 F.2d at 1243). A. Plaintiffs Cannot Establish a Likelihood of Success on the Merits.
Filed December 4, 2015
Such “[m]andatory preliminary relief, which goes well beyond simply maintaining the status quo pendente lite, is particularly disfavored, and should not be issued unless the facts and law clearly favor the moving party.” Martinez v. Mathews, 544 F.2d 1233, 1243 (5th Cir. 1976). The motion should be denied.
Filed April 28, 2008
A mandatory injunction "`goes well beyond simply maintaining the status quo pendente lite [and] is particularly disfavored.'" Anderson v. United States, 612 F.2d 1112, 1114 (9th Cir. 1979) (quoting Martinez v. Mathews, 544 F.2d 1233, 1243 (5th Cir. 1976)). In this case, Valeant is seeking more than maintaining the status quo.
Filed September 16, 2009
Moreover, “[m]andatory preliminary relief, which goes beyond simply maintaining the status quo pendente lite, is particularly disfavored, and should not be issued unless the facts and law clearly favor the moving party.” Martinez v. Mathews, 544 F.2d 1233, 1243 (5th Cir. 1976); see also Miami Beach Federal Sav. & Loan Assoc. v. Callander, 256 F.2d 410, 415 (5th Cir. 1958) (a mandatory preliminary injunction “should not be granted except in rare circumstances in which the facts and law are clearly in favor of the moving party.”)