ABG Prime Group v. Mixed Chicks, LLC
ORDER DENYING IN PART 2 Plaintiff's MOTION for Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction, Requiring service forthwith and setting a status conference ( Status Conference set for 10/19/2017 02:30 PM before District Judge Robert H. Cleland) Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
ABG PRIME GROUP, INC.,
Case No. 17-13257
MIXED CHICKS, LLC,
ORDER DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S “MOTION FOR EX PARTE TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION,” REQUIRING
SERVICE FORTHWITH, AND SETTING A STATUS CONFERENCE
Plaintiff filed its Complaint (Dkt. #1) on October 4, 2017. Currently before the
court is Plaintiff’s “Motion for Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary
Injunction” filed the same day. (Dkt. #2.) Defendant has not been served. For the
following reasons, the court will deny the motion for a temporary restraining order.
When evaluating a motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”), a district
court must strictly adhere to the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.
Leslie v. Penn C. R. Co., 410 F.2d 750, 751 (6th Cir. 1969) (quoting Austin v. Altman,
332 F.2d 273, 275 (2d Cir. 1964)). Rule 65 states in relevant part that:
The court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral
notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if: (A) 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; and (B) the movant’s attorney
certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it
should not be required.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). When evaluating whether to grant a TRO, the court must consider
“(1) whether the movant has a strong likelihood of success on the merits, (2) whether
the movant would suffer irreparable injury absent a [TRO], (3) whether granting the
[TRO] would cause substantial harm to others, and (4) whether the public interest would
be served by granting the [TRO].” N.E. Ohio Coal. for the Homeless v. Blackwell, 467
F.3d 999, 1009 (6th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). These factors are “interrelated
considerations that must be balanced together,” not independent prerequisites. Id.
(quoting Mich. Coal. of Radioactive Material Users, Inc. v. Griepentrog, 945 F.2d 150,
153 (6th Cir. 1991)). A TRO, however, is a form of emergency relief and requires that a
plaintiff would suffer “immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage . . . before the
adverse party can be heard in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(A).
The court has reviewed Plaintiff’s motion and complaint, and it finds that the
requirements for issuing a TRO are not met. Specifically, the court is unconvinced that
the Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm before the Defendant can be heard in opposition.
Rather, it seems to the court, the harm contemplated by Plaintiff is one of money
damages that can be determined, if necessary, at a later date. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that
1. Plaintiff’s “Motion for Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary
Injunction” is DENIED with respect to the request for a temporary restraining
2. Plaintiff is directed to serve Defendant no later than October 23, 2017, and
3. the parties appear for a status conference on October 19, 2017 at 2:30 pm at
the Federal Building and Courthouse, Port Huron, Mi
s/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: October 6, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, October 6, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
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?