Case 5:17-cv-06064-LHK Document 54 Filed 03/26/18 Page 7 of 27 1 be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Id. at 1130 (quoting Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 2 497 (9th Cir. 1995)). Nonetheless, a court “may exercise its discretion to deny leave to amend due 3 to ‘undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on part of the movant, repeated failure to cure 4 deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party. . . , [and] 5 futility of amendment.’” Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 892–93 (9th Cir. 6 2010) (alterations in original) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). United States District Court Northern District of California 7 C. Motion for Preliminary Injunction 8 A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, never granted as a matter of right. 9 Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary 10 injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer 11 irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, 12 and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20. The party seeking the injunction bears 13 the burden of proving these elements. Klein v. City of San Clemente, 584 F.3d 1196, 1201 (9th 14 Cir. 2009). The issuance of a preliminary injunction is at the discretion of the district court. 15 Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). 16 17 D. Judicial Notice In support of Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, Plaintiff has requested the 18 Court to take judicial notice of Plaintiff’s complaint in the instant case. ECF No. 28. Defendants 19 do not oppose this request. Further, in support of Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motion to 20 dismiss, Plaintiff has requested the Court to take judicial notice of a class action complaint against 21 Defendant Google filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court by two former employees. ECF No. 22 35. Defendants oppose this request by arguing that the complaint is irrelevant and that the alleged 23 misconduct by Google in the complaint is “subject to reasonable dispute.” ECF No. 40. 24 The Court may take judicial notice of matters that are either “generally known within the 25 trial court’s territorial jurisdiction” or “can be accurately and readily determined from sources 26 whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). Public records, 27 28 7 Case No. 17-CV-06064-LHK ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FEDERAL CAUSES OF ACTION; DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S STATE LAW CAUSES OF ACTION; AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION