Support the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse?

The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse is committed to making information about civil rights lawsuits public, accessible, and free. If you use our--recently revamped--website and the posted documents and information, would you consider a donation? Our small but mighty team relies principally on grant funding and donations. Can you help?

Support the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse?

The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse is committed to making information about civil rights lawsuits public, accessible, and free. If you use our--recently revamped--website and the posted documents and information, would you consider a donation? Our small but mighty team relies principally on grant funding and donations. Can you help?

Thank you!

DONATE

Case: Bailey v. Pritzker

3:20-cv-00474 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois

Filed Date: April 23, 2020

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

COVID-19 Summary: In this case filed on April 23, 2020 by an Illinois State Representative, an Illinois Circuit Court judge issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the Governor of Illinois from enforcing the state's stay at home order against the plaintiff. Later, the judge declared that both the Governor's extension of the stay at home order and the order itself exceeded his authority. The Illinois Supreme Court transferred this case to consolidate it with other COVID-19-related litigat…

COVID-19 Summary: In this case filed on April 23, 2020 by an Illinois State Representative, an Illinois Circuit Court judge issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the Governor of Illinois from enforcing the state's stay at home order against the plaintiff. Later, the judge declared that both the Governor's extension of the stay at home order and the order itself exceeded his authority. The Illinois Supreme Court transferred this case to consolidate it with other COVID-19-related litigation, and the Governor is seeking to vacate the original judge's declaratory judgment.


On April 23, 2020, an Illinois State Representative filed this lawsuit suit in the Clay County Circuit Court. Represented by private counsel, the plaintiff sued the Governor of Illinois under state law, asserting that the governor lacked authority under the Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act (the Act) to extend the state's stay at home order through the end of April. The plaintiff sought a declaration that the extended stay at home order was "in excess of the authority granted . . . under the act." The plaintiff also sought to enjoin the Governor from enforcing the extended stay at home order against the plaintiff.

This case arose from Illinois' response to the COVID-19 pandemic. On March 9, 2020, the Governor issued a proclamation under the Act declaring that the COVID-19 pandemic was a public health emergency rising to the level of a disaster. The Act conferred on the Governor emergency powers for 30 days following the declaration. Under his emergency powers, the Governor issued an executive order on March 20 requiring that Illinois residents only leave their home for essential activities or business. This executive order was effective until April 8. On April 1, the Governor declared that the COVID-19 pandemic was a "continuing public health emergency" and issued an executive order extending the stay at home requirement until April 30.

The plaintiff asserted that under the Act, the Governor lacked the authority to extend the March 20 executive order beyond April 8, which was 30 days after the initial disaster declaration. The plaintiff further alleged that the executive order "limit[ed] [the plaintiff's] constitutionally protected freedoms in that it ordered him to stay at home, or at his place of residence, as well as limited his ability to travel within the state."

The plaintiff also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO), asserting that the executive order was causing irreparable harm by ordering him to stay at home and avoid travel.

The same day, Judge Michael McHaney granted the the plaintiff's motion for a TRO and enjoined the Governor from enforcing the stay at home order against the plaintiff. Judge McHaney found that the plaintiff "has a clearly ascertainable right in need of immediate protection, namely his liberty interest to be free from [defendant's] executive order of quarantine in his own home." Judge McHaney also concluded that the plaintiff had a reasonable likelihood of succeeding on the merits, would suffer irreparable harm if a TRO were not issued, and had no adequate remedy at law.

The Governor immediately appealed to the Fifth District Appellate Court and filed an emergency motion for direct appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. Before the appellate court could rule, the plaintiff consented to the vacating of the TRO, and the matter was remanded to the circuit court on May 1.

On May 13, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The plaintiff maintained his argument that the Governor exceeded his authority in extending the stay at home order. In addition, the plaintiff asserted that the April 30 disaster proclamation was void because the continuing public health emergency failed to meet the statutory definition of a disaster. The plaintiff further argued that the governor "had no Illinois constitutional authority to restrict citizen's movement or activities and/or forcibly close the business premises" and that this authority was delegated to the Department of Health.

On May 18, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment.

On May 21, the Governor removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. He asserted that the district court had federal question jurisdiction because the "action seeks redress for alleged deprivations of [plaintiff's] federal constitutional rights caused by actions taken under color of state law." He asserted that the action sought to redress the "alleged deprivation of [plaintiff's] . . . First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, his Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process, his right to interstate travel, and the right to a Republican Form of Government conferred by Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution." The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Gilbert C. Sison.

Later that day, the plaintiff filed an emergency motion to remand the case. The plaintiff argued that the matter raised "nothing but questions concerning Defendant's authority under certain Illinois statutes" and asserted that the defendant was "intent on forum shopping and want[ed] nothing more than to derail state court proceedings." Plaintiff further contended that "Whether or not Defendant’s actions infringe on rights existing under the United States Constitution is irrelevant to and mentioned nowhere in Plaintiff’s complaint or first amended complaint" and that "the core of Plaintiff’s causes of action, is not 'capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance.'” Plaintiff additionally sought expedited relief and attorneys' fees.

A day later, on May 22, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a statement of interest supporting the plaintiff's motion "because the plaintiff makes no federal claim." First, the DOJ asserted that the defendant misread the amended complaint and that "plaintiff has elected to proceed on only state law claims, and removal is thus improper." Moreover, the DOJ contended that the Governor exceeded his authority when issuing the executive orders. Lastly, the DOJ argued that while the case had federal implications, these implications were not sufficient to support removal.

On June 29, 2020, Judge Sison remanded the case. While calling the decision "a close call," Judge Sison reasoned that the "most straightforward reading" of the amended complaint was that the plaintiff sued under the Illinois declaratory judgment statute seeking resolution of state-law questions about the extent of the Governor's power; any implicit federal constitutional issues were "not central" to the case. Judge Sison also rejected the Governor's argument that 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) (a largely defunct statute that allows civil rights plaintiffs to sue in federal court regardless of the amount in controversy, useful decades ago when 28 U.S.C. § 1331 had an amount in controversy requirement) conferred broader jurisdiction than § 1331. However, Judge Sison rejected the plaintiff's motion for fees, finding that removal was non-frivolous since the complaint referred to constitutional rights. 2020 WL 3498428.

Three days later, Judge McHaney granted partial summary judgment for the plaintiff. Judge McHaney declared that the Governor's second and third disaster proclamations were void because they arose from the same "occurrence or threat" that gave rise to the first proclamation yet extended beyond the Act's 30-day limit. Judge McHaney also declared that the proclamations' substantive provisions were invalid because the Act did not give the Governor "any authority to restrict a citizen's movement or activities." In addition, Judge McHaney held that the decision applied to all citizens of Illinois. But he declined to issue an injunction and denied summary judgment on the plaintiff's claims that COVID-19 did not meet the Act's definition of a disaster.

On July 7, the Governor moved to dismiss the plaintiff's remaining claim that COVID-19 was not a disaster under the Act.

Meanwhile, the plaintiff felt that the Governor had not complied with the circuit court's summary judgment ruling. So, he filed a motion to hold the Governor in civil contempt on August 5, 2020. In response, the circuit court on August 7 issued the Governor a show cause order. The Governor sought a supervisory order from the Illinois Supreme Court, which stayed the contempt hearing on August 11 but refused to issue a supervisory order. Instead, the Court ordered this case consolidated with Craig v. Pritzker, No. 20 MR 589, in the Sangamon County Circuit Court before Judge Raylene D. Grischow.

After consolidation, the Governor promptly filed a motion to vacate the Clay County Circuit Court's July 2 summary judgement decision for lack of jurisdiction. That motion is pending as of October 12, 2020; the case is ongoing.

Summary Authors

Aaron Gurley (5/26/2020)

Averyn Lee (6/20/2020)

Timothy Leake (10/12/2020)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17186124/parties/bailey-v-pritzker/


Judge(s)

McHaney, Michael D. (Illinois)

Sison, Gilbert C. (Illinois)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

DeVore, Thomas G. (Illinois)

Hyam, Erik (Illinois)

Mollet, Nicole (Illinois)

Wallace, Steven M. (Illinois)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Bautista, Laura K. (Illinois)

Jones, Isaac Freilich (Illinois)

Kinkead, Darren Bernens (Illinois)

Raoul, Kwame (Illinois)

Judge(s)

McHaney, Michael D. (Illinois)

Sison, Gilbert C. (Illinois)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

DeVore, Thomas G. (Illinois)

Hyam, Erik (Illinois)

Mollet, Nicole (Illinois)

Wallace, Steven M. (Illinois)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Bautista, Laura K. (Illinois)

Jones, Isaac Freilich (Illinois)

Kinkead, Darren Bernens (Illinois)

Raoul, Kwame (Illinois)

Rees, R. Douglas (Illinois)

Verticchio, Thomas J (Illinois)

Wells, Christopher Graham (Illinois)

Wichern, Nadine J (Illinois)

Other Attorney(s)

Cutchin, James M. (Illinois)

Dreiband, Eric S. (District of Columbia)

Maugeri, Alexander Virgil (District of Columbia)

Reed, Peter T. (Illinois)

Treene, Eric W. (District of Columbia)

Weinhoeft, Steven D. (Illinois)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

3:20-cv-00474

Docket [PACER]

July 9, 2020

July 9, 2020

Docket

2020-CH-06

Docket

Illinois state trial court

Sept. 11, 2020

Sept. 11, 2020

Docket

2020-MR-589

Docket

Illinois state trial court

Oct. 8, 2020

Oct. 8, 2020

Docket

2020-CH-06

Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Illinois state trial court

April 23, 2020

April 23, 2020

Complaint

2020-CH-06

Verified Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction With Notice

Illinois state trial court

April 23, 2020

April 23, 2020

Pleading / Motion / Brief

2020-CH-06

Legal Brief in Support of Darren Bailey's Verified Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief

Illinois state trial court

April 23, 2020

April 23, 2020

Pleading / Motion / Brief

2020-CH-06

Temporary Restraining Order

Illinois state trial court

April 27, 2020

April 27, 2020

Order/Opinion

2020-CH-06

First Amended Verified Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief

Illinois state trial court

May 13, 2020

May 13, 2020

Complaint

2020-CH-06

Motion for Summary Judgment

Illinois state trial court

May 18, 2020

May 18, 2020

Pleading / Motion / Brief

2020-CH-06

Legal Brief in Support of Darren Bailey's Motion for Summary Judgment

Illinois state trial court

May 19, 2020

May 19, 2020

Pleading / Motion / Brief

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17186124/bailey-v-pritzker/

Last updated Nov. 21, 2022, 3:10 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Circuit Court for the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Clay County, case number 2020 CH 6 ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0754-4185889), filed by Jay Robert Pritzker. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits to Notice of Removal)(Verticchio, Thomas) (Entered: 05/21/2020)

1 Exhibit Exhibits to Notice of Removal

View on RECAP

May 21, 2020

May 21, 2020

RECAP
2

NOTICE by Jay Robert Pritzker re 1 Notice of Removal, Civil Cover Sheet (Verticchio, Thomas) (Entered: 05/21/2020)

May 21, 2020

May 21, 2020

PACER
3

NOTICE of Appearance by Thomas J. Verticchio on behalf of Jay Robert Pritzker (Verticchio, Thomas) (Entered: 05/21/2020)

May 21, 2020

May 21, 2020

PACER
4

NOTICE of Appearance by R. Douglas Rees on behalf of Jay Robert Pritzker (Rees, R.) (Entered: 05/21/2020)

May 21, 2020

May 21, 2020

PACER
5

NOTICE of Appearance by Steven M. Wallace on behalf of Darren Bailey (Wallace, Steven) (Entered: 05/21/2020)

May 21, 2020

May 21, 2020

PACER
6

NOTICE OF INITIAL ASSIGNMENT TO A U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE: This case has been randomly assigned to United States Magistrate Judge Gilbert C. Sison pursuant to Administrative Order No. 257. The parties are advised that their consent is required if the assigned Magistrate Judge is to conduct all further proceedings in the case, including trial and final entry of judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73. As set forth in Administrative Order No. 257, each party will be required to file a Notice and Consent to Proceed Before a Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction form indicating consent or nonconsent to the jurisdiction of the assigned Magistrate Judge. If all parties do not consent to the Magistrate Judge's jurisdiction, the case will be randomly assigned to a district judge for all further proceedings and the parties cannot later consent to reassignment of the case to a magistrate judge. The parties are further advised that they are free to withhold consent without adverse substantive consequences. Within 21 days of this Notice, the following party or parties must file the attached form indicating consent to proceed before the assigned Magistrate Judge or an affirmative declination to consent: Darren Bailey, Jay Robert Pritzker. A link regarding the magistrate judges in this district is attached for your convenience: http://www.ilsd.uscourts.gov/documents/BenefitsofConsent.pdf. All future documents must bear case number 20-474-GCS. Refer to Civil/Removal Case Processing Requirements, found on the ILSD website, for further service information. Consent due by 6/11/2020 (ack) (Entered: 05/21/2020)

May 21, 2020

May 21, 2020

PACER
7

Emergency MOTION to Remand to State Court by Darren Bailey. Responses due by 6/25/2020 (Wallace, Steven) (Entered: 05/21/2020)

May 21, 2020

May 21, 2020

PACER
8

MEMORANDUM in Support re 7 Emergency MOTION to Remand to State Court filed by Darren Bailey. (Wallace, Steven) (Entered: 05/21/2020)

May 21, 2020

May 21, 2020

PACER
9

MOTION re 7 Emergency MOTION to Remand to State Court (to Expedite) by Darren Bailey. (Wallace, Steven) (Entered: 05/21/2020)

May 21, 2020

May 21, 2020

PACER
10

NOTICE of Hearing: Telephonic Status Conference set for 5/26/2020 at 1:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Gilbert C. Sison. Counsel is instructed to participate via telephone conference. Instructions for the conference call are as follows: (1) call toll-free, 888-273-3658; (2) when prompted, enter the seven-digit Access Code: 5699758; (3) when prompted, enter the four-digit Security Code: 0474. (dmw2)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 05/22/2020)

May 22, 2020

May 22, 2020

PACER
11

MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 9 MOTION re 7 Emergency MOTION to Remand to State Court (to Expedite) filed by Jay Robert Pritzker. (Rees, R.) (Entered: 05/22/2020)

May 22, 2020

May 22, 2020

RECAP
12

NOTICE of Appearance by Steven D. Weinhoeft on behalf of USA (Weinhoeft, Steven) (Entered: 05/22/2020)

May 22, 2020

May 22, 2020

PACER
13

NOTICE of Appearance by James M. Cutchin on behalf of USA (Cutchin, James) (Entered: 05/22/2020)

May 22, 2020

May 22, 2020

PACER
14

NOTICE of Appearance by Peter T. Reed on behalf of USA (Reed, Peter) (Entered: 05/22/2020)

May 22, 2020

May 22, 2020

PACER
15

NOTICE by USA of Statement of Interest on Behalf of The United States of America (Weinhoeft, Steven) (Entered: 05/22/2020)

May 22, 2020

May 22, 2020

RECAP
16

MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Objection to Motion to Expedite by Darren Bailey. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Proposed Reply to Objection to Motion to Expediter, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit to Proposed Reply)(Wallace, Steven) (Entered: 05/24/2020)

1 Supplement Proposed Reply to Objection to Motion to Expediter

View on RECAP

2 Exhibit Exhibit to Proposed Reply

View on PACER

May 24, 2020

May 24, 2020

PACER
17

ORDER granting 16 Motion for Leave to File. Plaintiff shall his reply to Defendant's response in opposition to the motion to expedite briefing instanter. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gilbert C. Sison on 5/24/2020. (kll)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 05/24/2020)

May 24, 2020

May 24, 2020

PACER
18

REPLY to Response to Motion re 9 MOTION re 7 Emergency MOTION to Remand to State Court (to Expedite) filed by Darren Bailey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Defendant's Supplemental Emergency Motion in Illinois Supreme Court)(Wallace, Steven) (Entered: 05/24/2020)

1 Exhibit Defendant's Supplemental Emergency Motion in Illinois Supreme Court

View on PACER

May 24, 2020

May 24, 2020

PACER
19

NOTICE - Telephonic Status Hearing is set for 5/26/2020 at 1:00 PM before Judge Gilbert C. Sison. While the federal courthouse is currently closed to the public per Administrative Order #266, full access to this hearing is available remotely. Instructions to join the hearing are as follows: Call toll free 1-888-684-8852, when prompted enter Access Code 6102338. In light of the public health crisis due to the COVID-19 virus, the Court finds that full access to the press and public cannot be afforded for this hearing. Other alternatives to closure were considered, but at this time the Court only has the technological capability to allow access by teleconference. (lmt)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 05/26/2020)

May 26, 2020

May 26, 2020

PACER
20

CONSENT/NON-CONSENT TO U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE - sealed pending receipt from all parties. (Wallace, Steven) Unsealed on 6/3/2020 (rah). (Entered: 05/26/2020)

May 26, 2020

May 26, 2020

PACER
21

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Gilbert C. Sison: Telephonic Status Conference held on 5/26/2020. Attorney Steven Wallace present on behalf of Plaintiff Darren Bailey. Attorneys Douglas Rees and Thomas Verticchio present on behalf of Defendant Governor Jay Robert Pritzker. USA Steven Weinhoeft present on behalf of the United States. The Court amends the deadline to consent to proceed before a magistrate judge to 6/2/2020. The Court GRANTS 9 MOTION re 7 Emergency MOTION to Remand to State Court (to Expedite) filed by Darren Bailey. Defendant's response to the Motion at Doc. 7 is due by 6/5/2020. Plaintiff's reply is due by 6/10/2020. (Court Reporter Karen Waugh.) (dmw2)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 05/26/2020)

May 26, 2020

May 26, 2020

PACER
22

FINAL CONSENT/NON-CONSENT TO U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE - sealed pending receipt from all parties. (Rees, R.) Unsealed on 6/3/2020 (rah). (Entered: 06/02/2020)

June 2, 2020

June 2, 2020

PACER
23

NOTICE: All parties have consented to have a United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Gilbert C. Sison is ASSIGNED to conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial and final entry of judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(c) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73. All future documents must bear case number 20-474-GCS. Any District Judge previously assigned will no longer be assigned to this case. (rah)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 06/03/2020)

June 3, 2020

June 3, 2020

PACER
24

MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 7 Emergency MOTION to Remand to State Court filed by Jay Robert Pritzker. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Verticchio, Thomas) (Entered: 06/05/2020)

1 Exhibit A

View on PACER

2 Exhibit B

View on PACER

June 5, 2020

June 5, 2020

PACER
25

REPLY to Response to Motion re 7 Emergency MOTION to Remand to State Court filed by Darren Bailey. (Wallace, Steven) (Entered: 06/10/2020)

June 10, 2020

June 10, 2020

RECAP
26

MOTION to Strike 25 Reply to Response to Motion by Jay Robert Pritzker. (Verticchio, Thomas) (Entered: 06/10/2020)

June 10, 2020

June 10, 2020

RECAP
27

RESPONSE in Opposition re 26 MOTION to Strike 25 Reply to Response to Motion Alternative Motion for Leave to File Reply in Excess of Page Limitations filed by Darren Bailey. (Wallace, Steven) (Entered: 06/10/2020)

June 10, 2020

June 10, 2020

PACER
28

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 26 Motion to Strike. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's request for leave to file excess pages and will consider his reply in its entirety. Defendant's request to strike the reply is DENIED. Defendant is granted leave to file a sur-reply, not to exceed three pages, no later than Monday, June 15, 2020. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gilbert C. Sison on 6/11/2020. (kll)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 06/11/2020)

June 11, 2020

June 11, 2020

PACER
29

REPLY to Response to Motion re 7 Emergency MOTION to Remand to State Court, 26 MOTION to Strike 25 Reply to Response to Motion filed by Jay Robert Pritzker. (Verticchio, Thomas) (Entered: 06/15/2020)

June 15, 2020

June 15, 2020

PACER
30

ORDER granting 7 Motion to Remand to State Court. For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum & Order, Plaintiff Darren Bailey's emergency motion to remand is GRANTED. It is hereby ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1447(c), this action be REMANDED to the Circuit Court for the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Clay County, Illinois. No fees or costs are awarded. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to transmit a certified copy of this Order to the clerk of the state court, and thereafter to CLOSE this case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gilbert C. Sison on 6/29/2020. (kll) (Entered: 06/29/2020)

June 29, 2020

June 29, 2020

RECAP
31

Letter to Fourth Judicial Circuit, Clay County, Illinois regarding Order Remanding Case (amv) (Entered: 06/30/2020)

June 30, 2020

June 30, 2020

PACER
32

Acknowledgment received from Clay County as to remand to State Court. (trb) (Entered: 07/09/2020)

July 9, 2020

July 9, 2020

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Illinois

Case Type(s):

Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority

Special Collection(s):

COVID-19 (novel coronavirus)

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: April 23, 2020

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

An Illinois State Representative

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Governor of Illinois, State

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

State law

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Right to travel

Due Process: Procedural Due Process

Free Exercise Clause

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Non-settlement Outcome

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order

Declaratory Judgment

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Order Duration: 2020 - 2020

Content of Injunction:

Preliminary relief granted