Hendricks et al v. The Feldman Law Firm LLP et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM ORDER Denying 1 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 10/6/2015. (nms)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE NICOLETTE HENDRICKS, WILLIAM HENDRICKS, ORGANIZATIONAL STRATEGIES, INC., INTEGRATION CASUALTY CORP., SYSTEMS CASUALTY CORP., AND OPTIMAL CASUALTY CORP., Plaintiffs; v. Civil Action No. 15-884 THE FELDMAN LAW FIRM LLP, STEWART A. FELDMAN, CAPSTONE ASSOCIATED SERVICES (WYOMING) LP, CAPSTONE ASSOCIATED .SERVICES LTD., AND CAPSTONE INSURANCE MANAGEMENT, LTD., Defendants. MEMORANDUM ORDER Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (D.I. 1) 1 and related briefing (D.I. 2, 9). For the reasons that follow, the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED. Following a hearing scheduled for October 14, 2015, this Court will rule on the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. To obtain a temporary restraining order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b), the moving party must establish the same elements as it must to obtain a preliminary 1 Citations to the docket in this case do not include the case number. A citation to the docket in a related case does include the case number. 1 injunction. Colahar v. Wells Fargo Bank NA., 56 F. Supp. 3d 603, 606 (D. Del. 2014); see also Nutrasweet Co. v. Vit-Mar Enterprises, Inc., 112 F.3d 689, 692-93 (3d Cir. 1997). To obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party must show: "(I) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that it will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is denied; (3) that granting preliminary relief will not result in even greater harm to the nonmoving party; and (4) that the public interest favors such relief." Kos Pharm., Inc. v. Andrx Corp., 369 F.3d 700, 708 (3d Cir. 2004). "[l]f an adequate remedy at law exists, equitable relief will not be granted." Goadby v. Phil. Elec. Co., 639 F.2d 117, 122 (3d Cir. 1981). Plaintiffs seek temporary injunctive relief preventing the parties from proceeding in competing arbitrations while I consider Plaintiffs' Compiaint to Compel Arbitration and Emergency Motion for Reconsideration. (D.I. 2 at 4). Plaintiffs argue that they will suffer irreparable harm if I do not grant the requested TRO because it is likely that, before this Court can rule on the Complaint and Motion for Reconsideration, the parties will become subject to multiple arbitration awards resolving the same dispute. (D.I. 2 at 10). In the event that competing arbitrations result in multiple awards resolving the parties' dispute, Plaintiffs could petition the Court to confirm, vacate, or modify any such awards pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act. 9 U.S.C. ยงยง 9-11. Further, if Plaintiffs came to believe that Defendants breached the parties' arbitration agreement, they could make a breach of contract claim in arbitration. (See C.A. No. 13-764 D.I. 50 at 6; see, e.g., D.I. 2-4). Thus, there are adequate remedies at law to address the harm that Plaintiffs assert. Because Plaintiffs have not established that they will suffer irreparable harm without a 2 ...... -~ TRO, their Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED. Entered this 3 ft;_ day of October, 2015.

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?