Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Searching dockets in Independence Law Center x
Alert me of new activity
All Case Activity Alerts Include: Answers, Appeals, Complaints, Motions, Orders, Trial Notes
Other Statutory Actions | Pennsylvania Western
Transcript Request
TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by HOLY TRINITY UKRAINIAN CATHOLIC CHURCH for proceedings held on May 1, 2026 before Judge Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand from Court Reporter(s): Sharon Siatkowski. (Davey, Joshua)
Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction
ORDER DENYING 85 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal filed by HOLY TRINITY UKRAINIAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. In the 85 Motion, Holy Trinity seeks an order of preliminary injunction pending its appeal of the Courts 4/8/2026 82 Order denying the Churchs 2 motion for a preliminary injunction. Defendants oppose the 85 Motion, contending that preliminary injunction should be denied for the reasons argued at the 3/23/2026 preliminary injunction hearing and set forth in Defendants briefing in opposition to the first 2 motion for preliminary injunction. See ECF Nos. 55, 58, 73. The standard for a stay or an injunction pending appeal is essentially the same as that for obtaining a preliminary injunction[.] Novartis AG v. Novadoz Pharms. LLC, No. 25CV849 (EP) (JRA), 2025 WL 1482417, at *2 (D.N.J. May 22, 2025) (quoting Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sec'y of U.S. Dep't of Health and Human Servs., No. 13-1144, 2013 WL 1277419, at *1 (3d Cir. 2013)). Accordingly, to obtain the requested relief, Holy Trinity must demonstrate (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that it will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is denied; (3) that granting preliminary relief will not result in even greater harm to the nonmoving party; and (4) that the public interest favors such relief. Kos Pharm., Inc. v. Andrx Corp., 369 F.3d 700, 708 (3d Cir. 2004). In its 85 Motion, Holy Trinitys arguments in favor of preliminary injunction are substantively the same as those made in its first 2 motion for preliminary injunction. Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the Courts 4/8/2026 82 Order denying the Churchs 2 motion for a preliminary injunction, the Court will deny Holy Trinitys second request for preliminary injunction. See Khalil v. Trump, 793 F. Supp. 3d 630, 634 (D.N.J. 2025) ([A]s a general rule, the second [motion for preliminary injunction] will be denied merely on a showing that the first one was denied, unless the plaintiff presents new and additional matter discovered since the former hearing. (quoting 43A Corpus Juris Secundum Injunctions § 367)). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 85 Motion is DENIED. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 5/14/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (drc)
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login
Email (NOTE: Free email domains not supported)
First Name
Last Name
Job Title
Phone
PLEASE NOTE: A verification email will be sent to your address before you can access your trial.
Password (at least 8 characters required)
Confirm Password
Law360 UK may contact you in your professional capacity with information about our other products, services and events that we believe may be of interest.You’ll be able to update your communication preferences via the unsubscribe link provided within our communications.We take your privacy seriously. Please see our Privacy Policy.