Case 1:20-cv-03325-AT Document 43 Filed 05/05/20 Page 29 of 30 is to preserve the status quo and it is to be issued only upon a showing that there would otherwise be danger of irreparable injury.” Id.; see also Asa v. Pictometry Intern. Corp., 757 F. Supp. 2d 238, 243 (W.D.N.Y.2010) (“[T]he court’s task when granting a preliminary injunction is generally to restore, and preserve, the status quo ante, i.e., the situation that existed between the parties immediately prior to the events that precipitated the dispute.”). Here, the status quo ante is the state of affairs immediately prior to the April 27 Resolution. “‘Status quo’ does not mean the situation existing at the moment the [lawsuit] is filed, but the ‘last peaceable uncontested status existing between the parties before the dispute developed.’” Chobani, LLC v. Dannon Co., Inc., 157 F. Supp. 3d 190, 201 (N.D.N.Y. 2016) (citation omitted) (quoting 11A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2948 (2d ed. 1995)). Accordingly, the Court’s injunction restores all ten presidential candidates named in the April 27 Resolution, and their respective slates of delegate candidates, to the New York Democratic presidential primary ballot, and requires that the primary election be held on June 23, 2020.5 5 In the alternative, the Court having concluded that Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenors have made a “clear” and “substantial” showing of likelihood of success on the merits, Beal v. Stern, 184 F.3d 117, 123 (2d Cir. 1999), a “strong showing” of irreparable harm, Doe v. New York Univ., 666 F.2d 761, 773 (2d Cir. 1981), demonstrated that injunctive relief is in the public interest, Actavis, 787 F.3d at 650, and shown that the balance of equities tips in their favor, Winter, 555 U.S. at 24, the foregoing relief can also be granted as a mandatory injunction. Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenors style their request for relief as on behalf of themselves and “all others similarly situated.” See Compl. at 1; Intervenor Compl. at 1. The others similarly situated are the putative delegates pledged to the other presidential candidates removed by the April 27 Resolution, as well as registered New York Democratic Party voters. The Court need not formally certify a class in order to issue the requested preliminary relief. See, e.g., Newberg on Class Actions § 24:83 (4th ed. 2002) (“The absence of formal certification is no barrier to classwide preliminary injunctive relief.”); Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.50, at 23-396, 23-397 (2d ed. 1990) (“Prior to the Court’s determination whether plaintiffs can maintain a class action, the Court should treat the action as a class suit.”). 29