Bestway (USA), Inc. et al v. SGROMO et al

Filing 132

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING 130 MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/24/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

BESTWAY (USA), INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10
11

v.
PIETRO PASQUALE-ANTONI SGROMO,
et al.,

Case No. 17-cv-00205-HSG
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Re: Dkt. No. 130

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

On October 22, 2018, Leonard Gregory Scott brought this motion for a temporary

14

restraining order and preliminary injunction to enjoin Pietro Pasquale-Antoni Sgromo from

15

continuing arbitration he has initiated against Scott. See Motion for Temporary Restraining Order

16

and Preliminary Injunction (“Mot.”), Dkt. No. 130. Scott brought a similar motion on September

17

17, see Dkt. No. 119, which the Court denied because Scott had not established a likelihood of

18

success on the merits, see Dkt. No. 122. In this motion, Scott has provided significantly more

19

background facts and exhibits to support his claims. However, Scott again fails to establish a

20

likelihood of success on the merits.

21

A temporary restraining order is an “extraordinary remedy” that the court should award

22

only upon a clear showing that the party is entitled to such relief. See Winter v. Natural Res. Def.

23

Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Such an order may be issued only where the moving party

24

has established: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm to

25

plaintiff in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in plaintiff's favor; and

26

(4) that an injunction is in the public interest. See id. at 22.

27
28

Scott has failed to establish his likelihood of success on the merits. Scott points to
Sgromo’s arbitration demand, see Dkt. No. 82-2, and the arbitrator’s rulings, see Dkt. Nos. 130-2

1

& 130-3, as establishing the necessity of an injunction because the arbitration “could lead to

2

inconsistent or contradictory rulings,” Mot. at 3:4. But Sgromo’s arbitration demand is wide-

3

ranging, and covers matters well beyond those raised in the interpleader action in this Court. See

4

Dkt. No. 82-2. And the arbitrator has not yet even determined the scope of what will be arbitrated.

5

See Dkt. Nos. 130-2 at 3, 130-3 at 1. Thus, allowing the arbitration to continue will not

6

necessarily result in any conflicts with this Court’s orders. Scott is, of course, free to raise the

7

prospect of conflict as to specific issues with the arbitrator, based on the record presented.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Accordingly, the motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 10/24/2018
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2