FINECOUNTRY, et al V. M.T. TRADING, et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION/ORDER DENYING Pltfs' Motion for Preliminary Inj. & TRO.. Signed by Judge Kevin McNulty on 4/16/13. (DD, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
FINECOUNTRY, LIZZY
SERENISSIMO LTD & LINNEF
NIGERIA LTD

Civil Action No. 13-2424 (KM)

:

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER

Plaintiffs,
v.
M.T. TRADING & BANK OF
AMERICA,
Defendants.

MCNULTY, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ application for a
Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order preventing M.T.
Trading from withdrawing $68,346.50 electronically transferred by Plaintiffs to
a Bank of America account allegedly owned and operated by M.T. Trading, and
returning that sum to Plaintiffs. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65.
A temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction requires, at a
minimum, some showing of likelihood of success on the merits. The Complaint
was probably hastily drawn, for understandable reasons, but it is fatally
flawed. It does not specify the legal theory upon which Plaintiffs seek to recover
(although a claim of fraud or conversion might be inferred). It plainly does not
attempt to state a claim arising under the Constitution or laws of the United
States.
Paragraph four (4) of the Complaint asserts that this Court has diversity
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1332. That statute provides that district

courts shall have jurisdiction over civil actions between “citizens of different
States” where “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000,
1

exclusive of interest and costs.” The complaint alleges that the parties are
diverse. The complaint and the accompanying affidavits very clearly state,
however, that the entire relief sought is that the court freeze the sum of
$68,346.50, currently on deposit, and ultimately return it to the Plaintiffs. It is
evident from the face of the Complaint and other papers submitted that
Plaintiffs have not alleged a dollar amount in controversy sufficient to invoke
this Court’s jurisdiction. Consequently, there is no possibility of success on the
merits and I cannot grant temporary injunctive relief, or any other relief.
Assuming the truth of the allegations, I am sympathetic with Plaintiffs’
position, and it would probably be prudent to seek similar relief in a state court
of competent jurisdiction.
Accordingly, IT IS this 16th day of April, 2013,
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and

Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED.

)

HON. KEVIN MCNILTY
United States DistrJg’e

2