Campbell v. Feld Entertainment, Inc, 5:12-cv-04233

Background

Plaintiffs Shannon Campbell and Mark Ennis are animal-rights activists who protest and videotape Ringling Bros. animal treatment at circus events and during animal transports to/from arenas.
Plaintiffs allege Ringling employees and security used ropes, physical blocking, laser/strobe lights, thrown objects, and bodily contact to interfere with protests and videotaping during formal “animal walks,” causing fear, injury, and emotional distress.
Defendants (Feld Entertainment and employees) say the rope is a thumb‑diameter nylon buffer to keep the public a safe distance from animals and assert activists created disturbances by approaching the rope and shoving employees.
Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to restrict defendants’ conduct (rope placement, a 3-foot buffer, staying off sidewalks, adherence to permits) for multiple Bay Area dates; after hearing, plaintiffs narrowed the request to informal animal walks in San Jose during August 21–26, 2013.
The court denied the broader request as moot, and denied the narrowed request because plaintiffs raised the informal-walk theory late (in reply), failed to show likelihood of success on the merits, and failed to show likelihood of future irreparable harm.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a preliminary injunction should prohibit defendants from using ropes/encroaching on sidewalks during animal transports	Campbell/Ennis: employees used ropes and physical tactics to harass and obstruct videotaping; need injunction to protect speech and safety	Feld: ropes create a safety buffer; activists provoked disturbances; no basis for injunctive relief	Denied — plaintiffs failed to show likelihood of success or future irreparable harm; revised theory raised too late
Whether plaintiffs demonstrated likelihood of success on merits under cited causes (Bane Act/assault/battery/§ 527.6)	Plaintiffs: conduct supports statutory and tort claims interfering with rights and safety	Defendants: dispute plaintiffs’ characterization; specific conduct not shown for informal walks	Denied — plaintiffs did not connect evidence to legal elements or analyze Winter factors for these claims
Whether plaintiffs showed likelihood of future irreparable harm from informal walks	Plaintiffs: past harmful incidents at formal walks predict future harm in informal walks	Defendants: contested that similar rope use or conduct occurs during informal walks	Denied — record lacks adequate evidence about informal walks to show imminent irreparable harm
Whether court should consider arguments/evidence first raised in reply (informal walks video)	Plaintiffs: submitted video and description in reply to support narrowed injunction	Defendants: reply‑only submission is procedurally improper and unfair	Court refused to consider new arguments/evidence in reply; this procedural failure contributed to denial

Key Cases Cited

Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (plaintiff must show likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest for preliminary injunction)
Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) (discusses ‘‘serious questions’’ sliding scale standard for injunctions)
Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2009) (rejects injunction standards lower than Winter)
Martin v. International Olympic Committee, 740 F.2d 670 (9th Cir. 1984) (courts should be cautious issuing mandatory injunctions that alter the status quo)
Klein v. City of San Clemente, 584 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2009) (burden of proof for party seeking preliminary injunction)
Zamani v. Carnes, 491 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2007) (courts need not consider arguments raised first in a reply brief)