Consolidated Grain & Barge, Inc. v. Anny et al

Filing 6

ORDER & REASONS re 1 Complaint for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Consolidated Grain & Barge, Inc.: for the reasons stated, pla's application is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Sarah S. Vance on 9/6/2011.(rll, ) Modified on 9/6/2011 to edit doc type (rll, ).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CONSOLIDATED GRAIN & BARGE,
INC.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 11-2044

RANDY ANNY ET AL.

SECTION: R(1)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is plaintiff’s application for a temporary
restraining order pending a determination on the merits of its
application for preliminary injunction.1

Plaintiff asks the

Court to enter a temporary restraining order without first giving
defendants an opportunity to be heard.

For the following

reasons, plaintiff’s application is DENIED.
A party can obtain a temporary restraining order or a
preliminary injunction only if: (1) there is a substantial
likelihood that the movant will prevail on the merits; (2) there
is a substantial threat that irreparable harm to the movant will
result if the injunction is not granted; (3) the threatened
injury outweighs the threatened harm to the defendant; and (4)
the granting of the preliminary injunction or temporary
restraining order will not disserve the public interest.

1

R. Doc. 1.

Clark

v. Prichard, 812 F.2d 991, 993 (5th Cir. 1987).

A court may

issue a temporary restraining order without notice only if
“specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly
show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will
result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in
opposition[.]”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A).

Rule 65(b) applies

even though plaintiff’s complaint states that defendants have
been notified.2

See Tootsie Roll Indus., Inc. V. Sathers, Inc.,

666 F. Supp. 655, 658 (D. Del. 1987).
Plaintiff’s complaint and accompanying affidavit3 fail to
state specific facts showing that immediate and irreparable
injury.

Plaintiff alleges that on August 16, 2011, defendants

“moved or attempted to move barges owned or operated by CGB’s
customers”;4 on August 18, 2011, defendants informed three of
plaintiff’s customers that they were not authorized to moor
barges at the facility in question;5 and on August 29, 2011,
defendants ordered a surveyor to leave the property.6

As a

result of these incidents, plaintiff claims that defendants “have
disrupted and interfered with CGB’s business operations and

2

Id. at ¶22.

3

R. Doc. 2.

4

R. Doc. 1 at ¶15.

5

Id. at ¶¶11-13.

6

Id. at ¶17.
2

customer and vendor relations.”7

The only support plaintiff

provides for this claim is that one customer requested plaintiff
to relocate its barges to another location.8

Plaintiff has not

specifically identified injuries that will cause it irreparable
harm, and accordingly cannot obtain the extraordinary relief it
seeks.

See, e.g., RCM Techs., Inc. V. Beacon Hill Staffing

Group, LLC, 502 F. Supp. 2d 70, 74 (D.D.C. 2007)(denying
application for temporary restraining order because plaintiff’s
alleged injuries were speculative and non-specific).
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s application for a
temporary restraining order is DENIED.

The Court’s case manager

will contact the parties to schedule a hearing on plaintiff’s
application for a preliminary injunction.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 6th day of September, 2011.
__

_________________________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7

Id. at ¶18.

8

Id. at ¶14.
3