yankeefanNcali wrote:
The written ruling states: 'Vasquez argues she has and is suffering harm in that she has had difficulty in obtaining work as a result of Lopez's attempts at enforcing the injunction against her.'

'Vasquez argues that Lopez, on the other hand, will suffer no harm if Vazquez's preliminary injunction is granted.

'Lopez puts forth no arguments contradicting those of Vazquez and, in fact, fails to address this element of the preliminary injunction test altogether. 

'As a result, the Court finds that the balance of the equities weighs in favour of Vazquez.'


I don't understand. This part, particularly the bolded sentence, implies that Jennifer's legal team didn't even offer up formal arguments as to why this should not go forward.  It's hard to imagine that her legal team didn't submit a brief arguing that J Lo would suffer harm if the videos were released.