in light of these elements. While the Court previously enjoined the City from enforcing specific provisions of the Ordinance against Pure Wafer, that ruling was based on the Court’s conclusion that the Ordinance unconstitutionally impaired Pure Wafer’s rights under the Development Agreement. (Doc. 87 at 29-30, 32). On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed the Court’s decision and alternatively held that the City breached its obligations under the Development Agreement by attempting to enforce parts of the Ordinance against Pure Wafer. Pure Wafer, 845 F.3d at 956-57. Thus, the Court must tailor any injunction to the harms flowing from a breach of contract rather than a violation of Pure Wafer’s constitutional rights. See Iconix, Inc. v. Tokuda, 457 F.Supp.2d 969, 998-1002 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (<HOLDING>). Courts often tailor injunctions issued in
holding that the citys minority setaside program was not narrowly tailored in part because the city had not considered whether raceneutral measures would have achieved the governments interest holding that only general rather than specific reasons must be stated when a court strays from the chapter 7 range holding city policymakers rather than turnkey were the city actors whose primary liability must be shown to establish  1983 claim arising from prisoner suicide recognizing that an injunction must be narrowly tailored to remedy only the specific harms shown by the plaintiffs rather than to enjoin all possible breaches of the law citing price v city of stockton 390 f3d 1105 1117 9th cir 2004 holding testimony must be accurately tailored to the specific manufacturing conditions ingredients and skill of the accused