Hendricks et al v. The Feldman Law Firm LLP et al
MEMORANDUM ORDER Denying 1 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 10/6/2015. (nms)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
NICOLETTE HENDRICKS, WILLIAM
STRATEGIES, INC., INTEGRATION
CASUALTY CORP., SYSTEMS CASUALTY
CORP., AND OPTIMAL CASUALTY CORP.,
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
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
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.
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. §§ 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
TRO, their Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED.
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?