relief "to allay a mere apprehension of injury at an indefinite future time." 42 Am. Jur. 2d Injunctions § 84 (2010); accord United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 633, 73 S.Ct. 894, 97 L.Ed. 1303 (1953) (injunetion requires a determination "that there exists:some cognizable danger of recurrent violation, something more than [a] mere possibility"). 80 If the evidence presented by a plaintiff seeking injunctive relief "is insufficient to justify issuance of a permanent injunction, the trial court simply hals] no discretion to exercise," -and summary judgment is proper. DVD Copy Control Ass'n, Inc. v. Kaleidescape, Inc., 176 Cal.App.4th 697, 97 Cal.Rptr.3d 856, 876 (2009) (Internal quotation marks omitted); Shaw v. Tampa Elec. Co., 949 So.2d 1066, 1070 (Fla.Ct.App.2007) (<HOLDING>). 81 InnoSys did not present evidence of a
holding that appellate deadlines are not extended by request for findings of fact and conclusions of law following summary judgment because they have no place in a summary judgment proceeding holding that a district court may not grant summary judgment without giving plaintiff an opportunity to submit materials admissible in a summary judgment proceeding or allowing a hearing on defendants motion holding that a court may deny a request for injunctive relief in a summary judgment proceeding if it is clear the plaintiff cannot meet the requirements for an injunction holding that injunctive relief does not meet the amount in controversy when the only reason the injunction is worth more than the jurisdictional minimum is that it would affect defendants future sales holding that a court may award injunctive relief against a state officer