have occurred at the Detroit Election Headquarters on West Grand Blvd. or at any polling place on November 3, 2020.
The Defendants all contend Plaintiffs cannot meet the requirements for injunctive relief and request the Court deny the motion.
When considering a petition for injunction relief, the Court must apply the following four-pronged test:
- The likelihood the party seeking the injunction will prevail on the merits.
- The danger the party seeking the injunction will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted.
- The risk the party seeking the injunction would be harmed more by the absence of an injunction that the opposing party would be by the granting of the injunction.
- The harm to the public interest if the injunction is issued. David v City of Detroit Financial Review Team, 296 Mich. App. 568, 613; 821 NW2d 896 (2012).
In the Davis opinion, the Court also stated that injunctive relief "represents an extraordinary and drastic use of judicial power that should be employed sparingly and only with full conviction of its urgent necessity." Id. at 612 fn 135 quoting Senior Accountants, Analysts and Appraisers Association v Detroit, 218 Mich. App. 263, 169; 553 NW2d 679 (1996).
When deciding whether injunctive relief is appropriate MCR 3.310 (A)(4) states that the Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving the preliminary injunction should be granted. In cases of alleged fraud, the Plaintiff must state with particularity the circumstances constituting the fraud. MCR 2.112 (B) (1).
Plaintiffs must establish they will likely prevail on the merits. Plaintiffs submitted seven affidavits in support of their petition for injunctive relief claiming widespread voter
2
