Bonanza Beverage Company et al v. Deschutes Brewery, Inc.

Filing 6

ORDER Denying Plaintiffs Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, originally filed in state court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Motion Hearing re Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction is set for 10/23/2013 09:00 AM in LV Courtroom 7D before Judge Gloria M. Navarro. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 08/08/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

BONANZA BEVERAGE COMPANY, a
)
Nevada Corporation; CROWN BEVERAGES, )
INC., a Nevada corporation,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
vs.
)
)
DESCHUTES BREWERY, INC. a foreign
)
corporation,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)

Case No.: 2:13-cv-01827-GMN-PAL
ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Motion for TRO that Plaintiffs filed in state court prior

11
12

to Defendant’s removal of this action.

13

I.

BACKGROUND
This case arises from the alleged termination of certain franchise agreements related to

14
15

the wholesale distribution of alcoholic beverages. (Compl. ¶ 20, ECF No. 1-1.) As a result of

16

the purported termination, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in state court alleging seven causes of

17

action: (1) Breach of Plaintiffs’ Statutory Rights — NRS § 597.120, et seq.; (2) Breach of

18

Contract; (3) Contractual Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (4) Tortious

19

Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (5) Intentional Interference with

20

Prospective Economic Advantage; (6) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations; and

21

(7) Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief. (Id. ¶ 33-76.) Although the state court initially

22

set a hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction

23

for September 26, 2013, (see Pet. for Removal Ex. D, ECF No. 1-5), the parties later stipulated

24

to continue the hearing to October 23, 2013 (see Pet. for Removal Ex. E, ECF No. 1-5).

25

Subsequently, Defendant Deschutes Brewery, Inc. (“Defendant”) removed the case to this
Court.
Page 1 of 2

1

II.

2

DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 governs temporary restraining orders, and requires

3

that a motion for temporary restraining order include “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified

4

complaint [that] clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result

5

to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition,” as well as written

6

certification from the movant’s attorney stating “any efforts made to give notice and the

7

reasons why it should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b).

8
9

Here, Plaintiffs have failed to carry its burden of establishing that the Court should
enjoin Defendant without affording Defendant an opportunity to be heard. Given the parties’

10

stipulation to continue the hearing on the instant matter for nearly one month, the Court

11

concludes that Plaintiffs have not established that they will suffer irreparable injury by allowing

12

Defendant an opportunity to oppose the issuance of an injunction. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’

13

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED. A hearing on Plaintiffs’ pending motion

14

for Preliminary Injunction is hereby set for October 23, 2013 at 9:00 AM.

15

III.

16
17
18
19
20

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,

originally filed in state court, is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a hearing on Plaintiffs’ pending motion for
Preliminary Injunction is set for October 23, 2013 at 9:00 AM.
October
8
DATED this _____ day of _____________, 2013.

21
22
23
24

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro
United States District Judge

25

Page 2 of 2