Opinion

Fry

Court
District Court, N.D. California
Filed
Apr 15, 2026
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 41.4%

The opinion

1

2

3

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7 DONALD FRY, et al., Case No. 25-cv-03769-HSG

8 Plaintiffs, AMENDED ORDER DENYING

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

9 v. INJUNCTION1

10 CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORP., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 69, 75

11 Defendants.

12

13 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Dkt. No. 69.

14 The Court DENIES the motion.

15 Plaintiffs ask the Court for a preliminary injunction to block Defendant Capital One’s

16 acquisition of Brex Inc. Dkt. No. 69. Plaintiffs’ motion was filed before the Court granted Capital

17 One’s motion to dismiss the complaint. See Dkt. No. 72. There is therefore no operative

18 complaint at issue. But even if the Court were to consider Plaintiffs’ requested relief based on

19 their First Amended Complaint, the Court would have to deny it, because that complaint does not

20 allege any facts concerning the acquisition of Brex. A plaintiff is not entitled to an injunction

21 based on claims not pled in the complaint. Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med.

22 Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015). “[T]here must be a relationship between the injury

23 claimed in the motion for injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the underlying complaint.

24 This requires a sufficient nexus between the claims raised in a motion for injunctive relief and the

25 claims set forth in the underlying complaint itself.” There is a sufficient nexus if the interim order

26 “would grant ‘relief of the same character as that which may be granted finally.’” Id. (citation

27

] omitted); see, e.g., id. at 636-38 (district court properly denied plaintiff's request for injunction to

2 || prevent HIPAA violation, where plaintiff had not asserted HIPAA claim). Considering the

3 complaint at the time Plaintiffs filed for a preliminary injunction, they alleged only that Capital

4 ||} One’s acquisition of Discover was in violation of the Sherman Act. Brex is not even mentioned in

5 || that complaint. The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction.

6 IT IS SO ORDERED.

7 |) Dated: = 4/15/2026

8 .

a (245 S. GILLIAM, JR. / f

9 United States District Judge

10

1]

a 12

13

14

15

16

17

Z 18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.