Page:Bowyer v. Ducey (CV-20-02321-PXH-DJH) (2020) Order.pdf/27

 on November 3, 2020. (Doc. 1 ¶ 60); (Doc. 1-9, Ex. 17) (emphasis added). He suggests that this spike “could easily be explained” by presuming that Dominion “pre-load[ed] batches of blank ballots in files such as Write-Ins or other adjudication-type files then casting them almost all for Biden using the Override Procedure….” (Doc. 1-9 at 9, Ex. 17). This scenario is conceivable. However, Defendant Hobbs points to a much more likely plausible explanation: because Arizona begins processing early ballots before the election, the spike represented a normal accounting of the early ballot totals from Maricopa and Pima Counties, which were reported shortly after in-person voting closed. (Doc. 40 at 17–18). Thus, the Court finds that while this “spike” could be explained by an illicit hacking of voting machinery in Arizona, the spike is “not only compatible with, but indeed was more likely explained by, lawful, unchoreographed” reporting of early ballot tabulation in those counties. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 680. Plaintiffs have not moved the needle for their fraud theory from conceivable to plausible, which they must do to state a claim under Federal pleading standards. Id.

Because Plaintiffs have failed to plead their fraud claims with particularity and because the Complaint is grounded in these claims, it must be dismissed.
 * G. Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction

There are multiple independent grounds upon which to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Accordingly, it is not necessary to reach the merits of Plaintiffs’ requests for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction and the Court will therefore only briefly addresses those Motions here.

“The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is identical to that for issuing a preliminary injunction.” Taylor-Failor v. Cty of Hawaii, 90 F. Supp. 3d 1095, 1098 (D. Haw. 2015). Under normal circumstances, both are extraordinary and drastic remedies,