Case 1:20-cv-03325-AT Document 43 Filed 05/05/20 Page 7 of 30 Herzog, Suh, Vogel, Small, Hwang, Medeiros, and Green (the “Yang Delegates”), collected petition signatures for themselves and Yang in order to appear on the New York Democratic presidential primary ballot as Convention delegate candidates pledged to Yang. Herzog Aff. ¶¶ 4–5; Suh Aff. ¶¶ 4–5; Vogel Aff. ¶¶ 4–5; Small Aff. ¶¶ 4–5; Hwang Aff. ¶¶ 4–5; Medeiros Aff. ¶¶ 4–5; Green Aff. ¶¶ 4–5. They state that they still wish to be elected as delegates. Id. Albro, Mintz, Bellanca, Strickland, Adams, Medina, Nanda, Levy, Sauberman, Gardner, Carpineta, de Delva, and Barrow (the “Sanders Delegates,” who, together with the Yang Delegates, are referred to as “Delegate Plaintiffs”), qualified for, and were placed on, the New York Democratic presidential primary ballot as Convention delegate candidates pledged to Sanders. Intervenor Compl. ¶¶ 3, 5–14. They also still wish to be elected as delegates. Id. III. Procedural History On April 28, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their complaint and request for emergency relief pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 1. On May 1, 2020, Plaintiffs filed, with leave of the Court, a second amended complaint to name additional defendants. See Compl. On May 3, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff-Intervenors’ motion to intervene. ECF No. 38. On May 4, 2020, the Court held a telephonic hearing on the request for a preliminary injunction.2 2 Because Plaintiffs’ and Plaintiff-Intervenors’ entitlement to relief is clear from the undisputed record, the Court need not hold an evidentiary hearing before granting a preliminary injunction. See Charette v. Town of Oyster Bay, 159 F.3d 749, 755 (2d Cir. 1998) (“An evidentiary hearing is not required [to decide a motion for a preliminary injunction] when the relevant facts either are not in dispute or have been clearly demonstrated at prior stages of the case, or when the disputed facts are amenable to complete resolution on a paper record.” (citation omitted)); Maryland Cas. Co. v. Realty Advisory Bd. on Labor Relations, 107 F.3d 979, 984 (2d Cir. 1997) (stating that “there is no hard and fast rule in this circuit that oral testimony must be taken on a motion for a preliminary injunction or that the court can in no circumstances dispose of the motion on the papers before it,” and that “[g]enerally, the district court is not required to conduct an evidentiary hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction when essential facts are not in dispute” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). 7