WESTFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY v. PAVEX CORPORATION et al
Filing
5
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Setting Hearing Date for Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction 2 . Motion Hearing set for 1/5/2018 at 9:30 AM before District Judge Denise Page Hood. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (KJac)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
WESTFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 17-14042
HON. DENISE PAGE HOOD
v.
PAVEX CORPORATION,
BRIAN MORRISON,
Defendants.
/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND SETTING HEARING DATE FOR
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [#2]
On December 15, 2017, Plaintiff Westfield Insurance Company (“Westfield”)
filed a complaint against Defendants Pavex Corporation (“Pavex”) and Brian
Morrison (“Morrison”) (collectively, “Defendants”). (Doc #1) Plaintiff alleges that
the Defendants have breached their Indemnity Agreement with Westfield, and
requests the Court grant certain declaratory and monetary relief. Now before the
Court is Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary
Injunction as to Defendants, which Plaintiff also filed on December 15, 2017. (Doc
# 2) For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining
Order is DENIED, and a hearing for the Motion for Preliminary Injunction will be
held on January 5, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.
1
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Westfield is an Ohio company. (Doc # 1, Pg ID 1) Defendant Pavex
Corporation is a Michigan corporation. Defendant Brian Morrison is a citizen
residing in the state of Michigan. (Id.) Plaintiff filed its Complaint on December
15, 2017. (Doc # 1) Plaintiff's complaint alleges five-counts for relief, but has
brought the present Motion “to compel the Indemnitors to abide by their contractual
obligations to indemnify, hold harmless and exonerate Westfield from any and all
claims and to provide Westfield payment necessary to secure Westfield against
potential liability under bonds is furnished on behalf of one or more of the
Indemnitors and to recover and protect trust funds.” (Doc # 2, Pg ID 8) Westfield
also seeks immediate access to Defendants’ books and records “so that it can
evaluate the claims made by those subcontractors and suppliers who claim Pavex
has failed to pay them; assess it liability and mitigate its damages.” (Id.)
II.
ANALYSIS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) allows the Court to issue a temporary
restraining order without notice to the opposing party if the following circumstances
are met:
(A) specific facts shown by affidavit or by 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;
(B) the movant’s attorney certifies to the court in writing any efforts
made to give the notice and the reasons why it should not be required.
2
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). Rule 65(b) is clear that the possibly drastic consequences of
a restraining order mandate careful consideration by a trial court faced with such a
request. 1966 Advisory Committee Note to 65(b). Before a court may issue a
temporary restraining order, it should be assured that the movant has produced
compelling evidence of irreparable and immediate injury and has exhausted
reasonable efforts to give the adverse party notice. Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67,
92 S.Ct. 1983, 32 L.Ed.2d 556 (1972); Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 91 S.Ct.
780, 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971); Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 339 U.S. 337
(1969); 11 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2951, at 504–06
(1973). Other factors such as the likelihood of success on the merits, the harm to the
nonmoving party and the public interest may also be considered. 11 Wright & Miller
at § 2951, at 507–08; Workman v. Bredesen, 486 F.3d 896, 904–05 (6th Cir. 2007).
Regarding the irreparable injury requirement, it is well established that a plaintiff’s
harm is not irreparable if it is fully compensable by money damages. Basicomputer
Corp. v. Scott, 973 F.2d 507, 511 (6th Cir.1992). However, an injury is not fully
compensable by money damages if the nature of the plaintiff’s loss would make
damages difficult to calculate. Id. at 511–12. For example, the Supreme Court has
held that “[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time
unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373,
3
96 S.Ct. 2673, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976); Newsome v. Norris, 888 F.3d 371, 378 (6th
Cir.1989).
Here, Plaintiff has failed to show that it will be irreparably harmed absent a
temporary restraining order. Plaintiff has requested that the Court order Defendants
to pay Westfield $741,882.08. (Doc # 2, Pg ID 28) The Court is satisfied that this
request seeks monetary damages. The Court notes that Plaintiff’s request for
damages to this point evidences a pecuniary loss.
The Court notes that the language used in Plaintiff’s Motion is entirely
compensable by money damages. Plaintiff requests that this Court enjoin Defendants
from “selling, transferring, disposing of, or liening” various pecuniary interests
including, but not limited to, “personal property, bonds, securities, companies, and
other investments.” (Doc # 2, Pg ID 29) Plaintiff also requests that the Court enjoin
Defendants from performing various financial acts. (Id.) The Court is satisfied that
these actions are pecuniary-based and this weighs against granting Plaintiff’s
motion.
In Grupo Mexicano de Desarrolo, S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S.
308, 119 S.Ct. 1961, 144 L.Ed.2d 319 (1999), the Supreme Court held that the
district court had no authority to issue a preliminary injunction preventing a
defendant from disposing of assets pending adjudication of a plaintiff’s claim for
monetary damages. Id. at 333. The Grupo Mexicano case involved a breach of
4
contract claim for money damages by unsecured creditors of a group of investors
who purchased notes involving a toll road construction. The Supreme Court
recognized the case of the usual preliminary injunction where a plaintiff seeks to
enjoin, pending the outcome of the litigation, an “action” that a plaintiff claims is
unlawful. Id. at 314.
The Supreme Court also noted the difference between that injunctive relief
and a preliminary injunction to protect an anticipated judgment of the court. Id. at
315. The Supreme Court stated that if a district court enters a preliminary injunction
to protect assets in anticipation of a judgment of the court, as opposed to enjoining
an “act” by the defendant, the defendant is harmed by the issuance of the
unauthorized preliminary injunction. Id. at 315.
Plaintiff also request immediate access to the records which is a term under
the Parties’ agreement, which the Court has yet to determine was breached. This
request is essentially a request for expedited discovery. A party seeking expedited
discovery in advance of a Rule 26(f) conference has the burden of showing good
cause or need in order to justify deviation from the normal timing of discovery. See
Qwest Communications Int’l, Inc. v. Worldquest Networks, Inc., 213 F.R.D. 418,
420 (D.Colo.2003); Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc. v. Humana Health Plan, Inc., 2008
WL 2923426 (W.D.Mich. Jul.24, 2008) (unpublished). Other than preserving the
records, Plaintiff has not sufficiently justified deviation from the normal timing of
5
discovery. Plaintiff has not carried its burden of showing good cause or need in
order to justify deviation from the normal timing of discovery. Plaintiff’s request
for immediate access to the records is denied.
Plaintiff seeks an Order to Show Cause to compel Defendants to appear.
However, E.D. Mich. LR 65.1 provides that requests for temporary restraining
orders and for preliminary injunctions must be made by motion and not by order to
show cause.
Regarding equitable relief in the form of constructive trust, Courts have held
that in order to issue an order freezing certain assets, the court must have sufficient
evidence to show a threat that an individual will dissipate the assets. Gen. Ret. Sys.
of the City of Detroit v. Onyx Capital Advisors, LLC, 10–CV–11941, 2010 WL
2231885 (E.D.Mich. June 4, 2010) (citing Newby v. Enron Corporation, 188
F.Supp.2d 684, 707–08 (S.D.Tex.2002)). In this case, Plaintiff has not submitted
any evidence that there is a threat that Defendant will dissipate the assets. Plaintiff’s
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order as to Defendants Pavex and Morrison is
DENIED.
6
III.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order as
to Defendants Pavex Corporation and Brian Morrison (Doc # 2) is DENIED
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing for the Motion for Preliminary
Injunction is set for Friday, January 5, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. Plaintiff must serve a
copy of this Order to Defendants by December 18, 2017. Any response brief to the
motion must be filed by December 26, 2017 and any reply brief must be filed by
January 2, 2018.
s/Denise Page Hood
DENISE PAGE HOOD
Chief Judge
DATED: December 15, 2017
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon
counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court=s ECF System to their
respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of
Electronic Filing on December 15, 2017.
s/Keisha Jackson
for Case Manager LaShawn Saulsberry
7
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?