Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 26, 2024

Brown v. Google

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:24-cv-07018
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Preliminary InjunctionCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Brown v. Google, Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Brown’s request for preliminary injunctive relief because her submissions did not make the required showing.

Who this affects

Sharon Leslie Brown and the defendants, including Google, in this case.

What happened

In Brown v. Google, Sharon Leslie Brown, representing herself, asked the court for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the specific relief she sought.

The court said Brown had to show a likely risk of harm that could not be repaired later and either a likely win on her claims or serious legal questions combined with hardships strongly favoring her. The court found that her submissions did not meet either merits standard.

Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Brown’s request for preliminary injunctive relief and denied her request for an order to show cause. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fees.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Brown v. Google · No. 1:24-cv-07018
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Sept. 26, 2024

Background

Sharon Leslie Brown filed an order to show cause seeking a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction against Google and other defendants. The opinion identifies Brown as proceeding without a lawyer but does not describe the underlying claims or the requested injunction's specific terms.

Legal standard

A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy. The court stated that Brown had to show both a likelihood of irreparable harm and either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious legal questions that warranted litigation, together with a balance of hardships strongly favoring her.

Court’s ruling

The court found that Brown’s submissions did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions combined with a strongly favorable balance of hardships. It therefore denied her request for preliminary injunctive relief. In the conclusion, the court denied her request for an order to show cause. The court stated that it would issue an explanatory order later.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fees for purposes of an appeal.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.