907 F.2d 154
Unpublished Disposition
LOCAL JOINT EXECUTIVE BOARD, CULINARY WORKERS' LOCAL UNION #
226; Bartenders Union, Local 165; John Lavoie;
Jim Bonaventure; James Fisher; James
Raso, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
JOHN MORAN, in his capacity as Sheriff of Clark County,
Nevada; LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT; ROY
WOOFTER, in his capacity as City Attorney of the City of Las
Vegas; CITY OF LAS VEGAS; WALTER MEYERS; OFFICERS McGHIE
(Badge 2883); CARLSON (2204); MATTIMORE (3438); HENDI
(3575); M. WILDEMANN (3516); C. COLLINS (2621); K. BLASHO
(2965); C. WEST (2751); F. REGAN (3670); M. GREGURAS
(3709); M. MATTINGLY, Defendants-Appellees.
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
No. 89-16731.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted May 18, 1990.
Decided July 3, 1990.
Before TANG, WILLIAM A. NORRIS and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM*
Appellants Local Joint Executive Board, Culinary Workers Union ("union") were engaged in picketing in front of two downtown Las Vegas casino hotels beginning in January 1989. In July, they changed their strategy and became louder and more aggressive so that appellees Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department ("Metro") began to make arrests. The union moved for a preliminary injunction, alleging that Metro's pattern of arrests violated the picketers' rights under the First Amendment and the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"). The district court denied the union's motion for a preliminary injunction and the union now appeals, invoking our jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(a)(1).
The union, in seeking a preliminary injunction, bears the burden of establishing substantial likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm if the injunction is denied or that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in its favor. See Lydo Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Las Vegas, 745 F.2d 1211, 1212 (9th Cir.1984).
After reviewing the pleadings, papers, affidavits, and particularly the videotapes, the district court denied appellants' motion for a preliminary injunction. The district court held that appellants had not satisfied their burden of showing substantial likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm if the injunction were denied. In addition, the district court found that "a strong public interest in preventing breaches of the peace weighs heavily against the relief requested by Plaintiffs." Excerpt of Record ("E.R.") at 56. The district court concluded that "[t]he record adduced simply does not support Plaintiffs' claims that Defendants have arrested Plaintiffs merely for peaceful, if loud, labor picketing which is protected under the First Amendment." Id.
We review the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. See Hunt v. National Broadcasting Co., 872 F.2d 289, 292 (9th Cir.1989). To prevail on the merits, the union must prove a pattern of illegal arrests in violation of the picketers' rights under the First Amendment and the NLRA. The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the union failed to make a persuasive showing on this issue at the preliminary injunction hearing.
The district court's order denying a preliminary injunction is AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3