# Fry

> District Court, N.D. California · April 15, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11372223

## Case

- **Full name:** Donald Fry, et al. v. Capital One Financial Corp., et al.
- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** April 15, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11372223

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11372223. Public record. Not legal advice.