The district court’s oversight is legally significant for three
related reasons. First, the person or entity seeking injunctive
relief must “demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the
absence of an injunction.” Id. at 375. An injunction will not
issue if the person or entity seeking injunctive relief shows a
mere “possibility of some remote future injury,” id. (internal
quotation marks omitted), or a “conjectural or hypothetical”
injury, City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 106 n.7
(1983). Second, “[i]njunctive relief . . . must be tailored to
remedy the specific harm alleged. An overb[roa]d injunction
is an abuse of discretion.” Lamb-Weston, Inc. v. McCain
Foods, Ltd., 941 F.2d 970, 974 (9th Cir. 1991) (emphasis
added) (citations omitted). Third and finally, “[a] mandatory
injunction . . . is particularly disfavored. In general, manda-
tory injunctions are not granted unless extreme or very serious
damage will result[,] and are not issued in doubtful cases.”
Marlyn Nutraceuticals, 571 F.3d at 879 (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted).
2924 PARK VILLAGE v. MORTIMER HOWARD TRUST
[10] By requiring Defendants to enter a HAP contract with
the Oakland Housing Authority, the district court’s injunction
violates all three of these principles governing injunctive
relief. First, Plaintiffs have not made any showing that they
are likely to be harmed by the Defendants’ failure to enter
HAP contracts. Absent such evidence of Plaintiffs’ likely
injuries, Plaintiffs have satisfied neither the baseline Winter
standard nor the heightened standard we have adopted with
respect to mandatory injunctions. See, e.g., Marlyn Nutraceu-
ticals, 571 F.3d at 879-80 (vacating mandatory injunction
where record failed to establish harm). In addition, absent any
harm relating to the HAP contracts, the district court’s injunc-
tion is overbroad because it is not tailored to remedy the
Plaintiffs’ actual harms, which are limited entirely to Defen-
dants’ threats of eviction, not Defendants’ threats to refuse
enhanced vouchers. See, e.g., United States v. BNS Inc., 858
F.2d 456, 466 (9th Cir. 1988) (modifying injunction to reduce
hardship to defendant while continuing to “eliminate the harm
. . . at issue in the [plaintiff’s] . . . complaint”).