Richland Equipment Company, Inc., a Mississippi Corporation v. Deere & Company, a Delaware Corporation

Filing 8

ORDER denying 3 Motion for TRO; denying 3 Motion for Preliminary Injunction Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 7/18/2017 (dtj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
RICHLAND EQUIPMENT COMPANY,
INC.
V.

PLAINTIFF

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-CV-88-KS-MTP

DEERE & COMPANY

DEFENDANT
ORDER

For the reasons below, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction [3].
This case arises from dealer agreements between Plaintiff, a retailer in tractors
and other outdoor/agricultural equipment, and Defendant, a manufacturer of such
equipment. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant threatened to unlawfully terminate the
dealer agreements and discontinue supplying Plaintiff with equipment. Plaintiff
alleges that the termination of the dealer agreements will cause the closure of its
business. Accordingly, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit, asserting a wide variety of claims,
and a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction [3].
A.

Temporary Restraining Order
A temporary restraining order is an “extraordinary remedy.” Lakedreams v

Taylor, 932 F.2d 1103, 1107 (5th Cir. 1991). Rule 65(b) provides the requirements for
obtaining a TRO:
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)(1). The movant must also show “(1) there is a substantial
likelihood that the movant will prevail on the merits; (2) there is a substantial threat
that irreparable harm will result if the injunction is not granted; (3) the threatened
injury outweighs the threatened harm to the defendant; and (4) the granting of the
[temporary restraining order] will not disserve the public interest.” Clark v. Prichard,
812 F.2d 991, 993 (5th Cir. 1987). These stringent requirements “reflect the fact that
our entire jurisprudence runs counter to the notion of court action take before
reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard has been granted both sides of a
dispute.” Phillips v. Chas. Schreiner Bank, 894 F.2d 127, 131 (5th Cir. 1990).
Plaintiff’s attorney has not certified in writing his efforts to provide notice to
Defendant and/or its attorney and the reasons why notice and a hearing should not be
required. See FED. R. CIV. P. 65(b)(1). Therefore, the Court must deny Plaintiff’s motion
for a temporary restraining order.
B.

Preliminary Injunction
To obtain a preliminary injunction, a Plaintiff must prove the same four

elements outlined above. See Jackson Women’s Health Org. v. Currier, 760 F.3d 448,
452 (5th Cir. 2014). “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that should
not be granted unless the party seeking it has clearly carried the burden of persuasion
on all four requirements.” Dennis Melancon, Inc. v. City of New Orleans, 703 F.3d 262,
2

268 (5th Cir. 2012). And the “court may issue a preliminary injunction only on notice
to the adverse party.” FED. R. CIV. P. 65(a)(1).
Defendant has not been served, and the record does not demonstrate that any
notice has been provided to it. Therefore, the Court must deny Plaintiff’s motion for
preliminary injunction.
For these reasons, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction [3].
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this _18th__ day of July, 2017.

s/Keith Starrett
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3