Wesbster Business Credit Corp v. Bradley Lumber Company et al
ORDER denying 35 Motion to Dissolve Preliminary Injuction against Bradley Brand Furniture, LLC. Signed by Honorable Harry F. Barnes on March 16, 2009. (cnn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W E ST E R N DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS E L DORADO DIVISION
WEB STER BUSINESS CREDIT CORP. PLAINTIFF A RK AN SA S DEVELOPMENT FINANCE AUTHORITY, and PARKWAY BANK
CASE NO. 08-CV-1083
B RA DLE Y LUMBER COMPANY, et al
W E B ST E R BUSINESS CREDIT CORP. ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion to Dissolve Preliminary Injunction against Bradley Brand Furniture, LLC filed by Bradley Brand Furniture, LLC ("Bradley Brand"). (Doc. 35). Defendants Bradley Lumber Com pany, Bradley Specialities, LLC, Bradley Specialties Division, Bradley Lumber Company Outlet Store, LLC, and F. David Chambers responded jointly. (Doc. 39). Intervenor Plaintiff Arkansas D evelopm ent Finance Authority also responded. (Doc. 37). Lastly, Defendant Webster Business Credit C orp . ("Webster") also responded. (Doc. 40). The Court finds the matter ripe for consideration. The dissolution of a preliminary injunction is within the discretion of the Court. Waste Mgmt., Inc . v. Deffenbaugh, 534 F.2d 126, 129 (8th Cir. 1976). In order for the Court to grant dissolution of a prelim inary injunction, the movant must show the Court that there has been a change of circumstances w arranting a different outcome than the Court's previous issuance of the preliminary injunction. ProE dg e LP v. Gue, 419 F.Supp.2d 1064, 1089 (N.D. Iowa 2006). Bradley Brand has not done that here.
In its Motion to Dissolve, Bradley Brand asserts only 1) that the injunction places a burden on it, and 2) that Webster does not have a security interest on the Bradley Lumber Company inventory and equ ipm ent that is currently in the possession of Bradley Brand. Bradley Brand did not offer the Court any account of the inventory and equipment it purchased from Bradley Lumber Company. Without k n o w in g exactly what inventory and equipment Bradley Brand acquired from Bradley Lumber Com pany, the Court is unable to conclude that Webster does not have a security interest in any of the inventory and equipment. Additionally, the Court notes that Intervenor Plaintiff, Arkansas Development Finance Authority ("ADFA"), also claims a security interest in any equipment Bradley Lumber C om pan y may have transferred to Bradley Brand. Bradley Brand's Motion does not speak to ADFA's potential security interest in the equipment. Furthermore, Bradley Brand did not offer the Court any evidence to show a change in circumstances since the Court initially issued the preliminary injunction on December 23, 2008. Consequently, the Court finds that dissolution of the preliminary injunction as to Bradley Brand Furniture, LLC is not warranted at this time. The Motion to Dissolve Preliminary Inju nc tion against Bradley Brand Furniture LLC is DENIED.1 IT IS SO ORDERED, this 16th day of March, 2009.
/s/ Harry F. Barnes Hon. Harry F. Barnes U nited States District Judge
The Court notes that the Special Master's Report is expected to be filed by March 31, 2009. The p a rtie s may wish to revisit this issue at that time.
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?