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

Filing 47

ORDER FURTHER EXTENDING TRO. Signed by District Judge Sharion Aycock on 4/6/2018. (adm)

Download PDF
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 FURTHER EXTENDING TRO 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 6, 2018 at 6:45 PM, after the Court enetertained arguments on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. However, the Court’s hearing on the preliminary injunction and replevin is not complete, as the Defendants have not had opportunity to be fully heard. However, the collateral at issue in this dispute is left unprotected without extension of the Court’s protective order. Therefore, during the hearing held on April 6, 2018, the Court, ruling from the bench, determined that the TRO should be extended until after the Court makes its decision regarding the preliminary injunction and replevin. The continuance of the hearing will be set by separate notice, and the Court will examine Plaintiff’s arguments on an expedited schedule so as to limit harm to both parties. 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 ultimate 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. SO ORDERED this the 6th day of April, 2018. /s/ Sharion Aycock UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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?