Ostrow et al v. Prime Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 43

District Judge Timothy S Hillman: ORDER entered granting in part and denying in part 36 Motion for Reconsideration. Upon reconsideration of the bond amount based on the assented-to motion, I reduce the bond requirement to $500.00. (Castles, Martin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
________________________________________________
MATTHEW OSTROW and LEO E. MILLER, JR.,
)
as they are TRUSTEES, HEALTH & WELFARE FUND )
IBEW LOCAL 96, PENSION FUND LOCAL 96 – IBEW, )
and ANNUITY PLAN IBEW LOCAL 96;
)
LEO E. MILLER, JR., as he is TRUSTEE, WORCESTER )
JOINT APPRENTICESHIP AND TRAINING FUND;
)
LAWRENCE J. BRADLEY, as he is EXECUTIVE
)
SECRETARY-TREASURER, NATIONAL
)
ELECTRICAL BENEFIT FUND; J. DAVID KEANEY, )
as he is LOCAL ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL
)
LABOR MANAGEMENT COOPERATION
)
COMMITTEE; LEO E. MILLER, JR., as he is
)
ADMINISTRATOR, CENTRAL MASSACHUSETTS
)
ELECTRICAL LABOR MANAGEMENT FUND;
)
and IBEW LOCAL UNION NO. 96,
)
Plaintiffs,
)
C.A. No. 14-40114-TSH
)
vs.
)
)
PRIME SOLUTIONS, INC.,
)
Defendant,
)
)
and
)
)
HONEYWELL BUILDING SOLUTIONS
)
SES CORPORATION, and SEABOARD SOLAR
)
HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a SEABOARD SOLAR
)
OPERATIONS, LLC
)
Reach-and-Apply Defendants.
)
________________________________________________)
ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' ASSENTED-TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
REQUIREMENT TO POST SECURITY FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AS TO
REACH-AND-APPLY DEFENDANT HONEYWELL BUILDING SOLUTIONS SES
CORPORATION
October 10, 2014
For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs' Assented-to Motion for Reconsideration of
Requirement to Post Security for Preliminary Injunction as to Reach-and-Apply Defendant

Honeywell Building Solutions SES Corporation (Docket No. 36) is granted in part, and upon
reconsideration the bond requirement is reduced to $500.
Prohibiting Reach-and-Apply Defendant Honeywell from paying money owed to
Defendant Prime, even if only temporarily, poses a risk of economic loss to Prime that is not
insignificant. Further, this is a commercial case in which Plaintiffs—benefit funds seeking
hundreds of thousands of dollars from an employer—"can be assumed capable of bearing most
bond requirements." Crowley v. Local No. 82, Furniture & Piano Moving, Furniture Store
Drivers, Helpers, Warehousemen & Packers, 679 F.2d 978, 1000 (1st Cir. 1982). Considering
the mandatory language of Rule 65(c), I find that requiring the Plaintiffs to post security is
warranted. However, upon reconsideration of the bond amount based on the assented-to motion, I
reduce the bond requirement to $500.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ Timothy S. Hillman
TIMOTHY S. HILLMAN
DISTRICT JUDGE

2