OLD TOWN UTILITY & TECHNOLOGY PARK LLC et al v. MFGR LLC et al
ORDER ON THE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER re 4 Motion for TRO By JUDGE JON D. LEVY. (akr)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
Old Town Utility & Technology
Park, LLC, Relentless Captital
Company, LLC and
MFGR, LLC, and
ORDER ON THE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY
The matter before the Court is the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order (ECF No. 4).
By a verified complaint filed in the Cumberland County Superior Court, the
plaintiffs, Old Town Technology Park, LLC (“OTU”), Relentless Capital Company,
LLC, and Samuel Eakin, seek injunctive and other relief in connection with the
purchase and sale of the Expera Mill Facility located in Old Town, Maine. The
Facility is owned by Defendant MFGR, who purchased it in January 2016. The
complaint asserts that after nearly a full year of negotiation between MFGR, OTU,
and others, MFGR ultimately decided to sell the Facility to a competing buyer. The
complaint seeks relief based on a number of theories, including Breach of Contract,
Specific Performance, Promissory Estoppel, Unjust Enrichment, and Conspiracy in
Restraint of Trade. On September 1, 2017, the defendants removed the action to this
Court based on diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332(a) (2017).
An ex parte hearing was held on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order on September 6, 2017. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the Defendants “from directly
or indirectly affecting the transfer of any of the real property, improvements, fixtures,
equipment or other property and rights associated with the Expera Mill Facility.”
ECF No.4 at 1. The motion alleges that Defendants’ counsel had confirmed that the
Defendants intended to complete the closing on the sale of the Facility by August 31,
2017. In response to my inquiries at the ex parte hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel stated
that a closing on the sale of the facility had not been held and that he understood that
because of difficulties associated with the financing, a closing on the sale of the
Facility would not be completed for a few weeks.
In accordance with Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court
“may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse
party or its attorney 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). The Rule further requires that the order expire in 14 days or less, unless
the court has good cause to extend it or the adverse party consents to an extension.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2). Here, based upon the information provided at ex parte the
hearing, a hearing can be scheduled and completed on Plaintiffs’ request for a
preliminary injunction within 14 days, and with notice to the Defendants.
Accordingly, plaintiffs have not shown that they will suffer immediate and
irreparable harm before the defendants can be heard in opposition to the motion.
Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 4) is
DENIED. The court will conduct a telephonic conference with all counsel to discuss
the scheduling of a Preliminary Injunction hearing.
Dated this 6th day of September 2017.
/s/ JON D. LEVY
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
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?