BMO Harris Bank N.A. v. Montana Farms LLC et al

Filing 37

AGREED ORDER EXTENDING TRO re 27 Order on Motion for Reconsideration on TRO. Signed by District Judge Sharion Aycock on 4/2/2018. (adm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ABERDEEN DIVISION
BMO HARRIS BANK N.A.
V.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:18-cv-14-SA-DAS

MONTANA FARMS, LLC,
ALONZO SYKES,
ANGELENA COOK, and
TERRY MCINTOSH

DEFENDANTS
ORDER EXTENDING TRO

This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ agreed ore tenus motion to extend the
Court’s Temporary Restraining Order [27] issued against Defendants.
On March 16, 2018, this Court entered a Temporary Restraining Order barring Defendants
and any of their responsible managing agents, officers, directors, or employees (acting within the
scope of his or her office or employment), and any other person or entity in active concert or
participation with the Defendants having actual notice of the Temporary Restraining Order by
personal service or otherwise:
from transporting, using, pledging, encumbering, selling,
transferring, or disposing of the Retained Collateral either in the
operation of the business of the Defendant Borrowers or otherwise,
except as may be necessary to move or transport the Retained
Collateral in order to comply with this Order after the delivery of
any third-party freight now loaded thereon, and, without limiting the
generality of the foregoing, the Borrowers are specifically ordered
not to load any third-party freight on the Retained Collateral.
The Restraining Order was set to expire on April 3rd, 2018 at 6:45 PM, one day after this
Court’s originally scheduled hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. However,
on March 30, 2018, Defendants’ Counsel informed the Court of his inability to attend said hearing

due to incapacitating physical injury. Thereafter, opposing Counsel agreed to reschedule the
hearing on the Motion for April 6, 2018.
However, the collateral at issue in this dispute is left unprotected without extension of the
Court’s protective order. Therefore, parties have communicated consent to extend the TRO until
April 6, 2018 at 6:45 PM. Such extension is for good cause, as the Court should have the
opportunity to hear arguments regarding the alleged defaults under the security interests at issue
in this matter before relief may be granted, and Plaintiff has demonstrated that there will be a
continuation of the circumstances of irreparable injury if the assets are left unprotected.
Conclusion
The Court grants the agreed request for an extension to the Temporary Restraining Order
to the extent noted above. Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction and replevin remain
pending until this Court’s hearing on Friday, April 6, 2018 at 2:30 PM.
SO ORDERED this the 2nd day of April, 2018.
/s/ Sharion Aycock
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2