Gilder v. PGA Tour, Inc. - 936 F.2d 417 (9th Cir. 1991)

Rule:

In seeking a preliminary injunction, plaintiffs must show either (1) a likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or (2) the existence of serious questions going to the merits and the balance of hardships tipping in their favor. The critical element in determining the test to be applied is the relative hardship to the parties. If the balance of harm tips decidedly toward the plaintiff, then the plaintiff need not show as robust a likelihood of success on the merits as when the balance tips less decidedly.

Facts:

Defendant professional golf association instituted a new rule banning clubs with U-shaped grooves from professional play. Plaintiffs, the club manufacturer and several professional golf players, challenged the ban on antitrust and state law grounds. They presented evidence showing that plaintiff manufacturer would suffer harm to its reputation and plaintiff players would lose endorsements and be disadvantaged on the tour by being required to use new clubs. The lower court found that the balance of the hardships tipped sharply in favor of plaintiffs and issued a preliminary injunction which defendant appealed.

Issue:

Was the issuance of preliminary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs warranted under the circumstances? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

On review, the court stated it had jurisdiction over the antitrust claim due to federal question jurisdiction and over the pendent state claims because there was a common nucleus of operative fact between the two. The court held that the claims were serious questions which indicated a fair chance of success on the merits and agreed that the hardships tipped in the favor of plaintiffs. The court therefore affirmed, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction.