Scott Wood Products, LLC v. Multitrade Rabun Gap, LLC
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that 2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED. Signed by Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Fuller on 2/8/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist)(cb, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA E A S T E R N DIVISION
S C O T T WOOD PRODUCTS, LLC, P L A IN T IF F , v. M U L T IT R A D E RABUN GAP, LLC, D EFEN D A N T.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
C A S E NO. 3:10-cv-007-MEF (W O - Do Not Publish)
M E M O R A N D U M OPINION AND ORDER P la in tif f Scott Wood Products, LLC ("Scott Wood") brings this action against D e f e n d a n t Multitrade Rabun Gap, LLC ("Multitrade") for damages and injunctive relief a risin g out of the alleged breach of a twenty year contract. It is alleged that, pursuant to this c o n tra c t, Scott Wood was to be the exclusive provider of wood products to Multitrade, but th a t Multitrade informed Scott Wood that it would no longer accept delivery of wood p ro d u c ts from Scott Wood. Scott Wood invokes this Court's subject matter jurisdiction p u rs u a n t to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The action is now before the Court on Scott Wood's Motion f o r Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 2). Multitrade opposes the motion. The Court has c a re f u lly considered the submissions in support of and in opposition to the motion. For the re a s o n s set forth below, the Court finds that the motion is due to be DENIED. A preliminary injunction is "an extraordinary and drastic remedy" that cannot be g ra n te d unless the moving party clearly establishes the following four prerequisites: (1 ) it has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable
injury will be suffered unless the injunction issues; (3) the threatened injury to th e movant outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the o p p o s in g party; and (4) if issued, the injunction would not be adverse to the p u b lic interest. Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Scott Wood has failed to convincingly argue that it has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. This is a g la rin g deficiency in its motion and supporting submissions. Scott Wood instead focuses its a rg u m e n ts nearly exclusively on the irreparable injury is claims it will suffer absent the re q u e s te d injunctive relief. Unfortunately, the evidence and legal argument before the Court f a il to establish irreparable harm that could not be adequately compensated by an award of dam ages. Scott Wood does not even address the third and fourth requirements for
p re lim in a ry injunctive relief. Scott Wood makes no mention of its willingness to post the n e c e s s a ry bond. In every respect, the pending request for preliminary injunctiver relief is d e f ic ie n t. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion for Preliminary Injunction (D o c . # 2) is DENIED. DONE this the 8 th day of February, 2010. /s/ Mark E. Fuller CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?