U.S. Bank National Association v. Triaxx Asset Management LLC et al
Filing
80
DECISION AND ORDER: Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion of Triaxx Asset Management LLC for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 50) is DENIED. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Victor Marrero on 9/17/2018) (ne)
J
Case 1:18-cv-04044-VM Document 80 Filed 09/17/18 Page 1 of 4
liSOCSDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC#:
~
DXI E 1-.,.L-ED-=-2-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
~
--z-zi-F-1
-----------------------------------x
./..
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
18 Civ. 4044
Interpleader Plaintiff,
DECISION AND ORDER
- against TRIAXX ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC, et al.:
Interpleader Defendants.
:
-----------------------------------x
VICTOR MARRERO, United States District Judge.
On August 3, 2018,
Management,
LLC
Interpleader Defendant Triaxx Asset
( "Triaxx")
submitted
a
letter
requesting
permission to file a motion for injunctive relief.
( "August
3 Letter," Dkt. No. 50.) Specifically, Triaxx requests that
the Court
"preserve the
status quo payment of
pursuant to the Governing Agreements."
argues
that
Interpleader Plaintiff U.S.
under the 2006-1 Indenture,
2007-1
42),
is
Indenture
(see
the 2006-2
(Id.
legal
at 1.)
Bank,
Indenture,
of
Triaxx
the Trustee
"First Amended Complaint,"
improperly withholding payment
fees
and the
Dkt.
Triaxx' s
No.
legal
fees, which will allegedly cause Traixx to suffer immediate
and irreparable harm. Triaxx also contends that the absence
of a preliminary injunction will unreasonably and harmfully
interfere with its attorney-client relationship and right to
counsel . (Id. )
1
Case 1:18-cv-04044-VM Document 80 Filed 09/17/18 Page 2 of 4
By letter dated August 7, 2018,
Interpleader Defendant
Pacific Investment Management Company LLC ("PIMCO")
Triaxx' s request for injunctive relief.
Dkt. No.
denied
51.)
opposed
{ "August 7 Letter,"
PIMCO argues that Triaxx's request should be
because
it
fails
to
meet
the
preliminary injunction: most notably,
cannot show an irreparable injury.
requirements
for
a
PIMCO asserts, Triaxx
PIMCO further contends
that any potential harm to Triaxx could be redressed by money
damages.
(See - - at 2.)
id.
--
The Court construes Triaxx's August 3 Letter as a motion
for a preliminary injunction. For the reasons set forth below,
Triaxx's motion is denied.
A preliminary injunction "is one of the most drastic
tools in the arsenal of judicial remedies," and, as such, it
is "one that should not be granted unless the movant,
by a
clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion." Grand River
Enter. Six Nations, Ltd. v. Pryor, 481 F.3d 60,
66
2007)
(per
omitted).
party
seeking
"(1)
(b)
make
curiam)
either
(a)
a
(internal
quotation marks
preliminary
a
injunction
must
(2d Cir.
A
demonstrate
likelihood of success on the merits or
sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to
them a
hardships
fair
tipping
ground for
litigation and a
in
decidedly
2
balance of
favor,
the
movant's
and
Case 1:18-cv-04044-VM Document 80 Filed 09/17/18 Page 3 of 4
(2)
irreparable
harm
in
the
absence
of
the
Faiveley Transport Malmo AB v. Wabtec Corp.,
116
(2d Cir.
2009)
injunction."
559 F.3d 110,
(internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). A showing of irreparable harm "is the single most
important
prerequisite
injunction."
Id.
for
the
(internal
quotation
demonstrate irreparable harm,
that
absent a
issuance
of
a
marks
the movant
preliminary
omitted).
To
"must demonstrate
preliminary injunction they will
suffer an
injury that is neither remote nor speculative, but actual and
imminent,
and one that cannot be remedied if a court waits
until the end of trial to resolve the harm." Grand River, 481
F.3d at 66 (internal quotation marks omitted).
In its letter, Triaxx has failed to show that
absence of a preliminary injunction
in the
it would suffer an
immediate injury that cannot be remedied after trial. Triaxx
merely
asserts:
"The
Trustee's
continued
withholding
of
Triaxx's legal fees will cause Triaxx to suffer immediate and
irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction
that allows it to continue to obtain indemnification for the
funds it needs to pay its counsel for ongoing representation."
(August
3 Letter at
1.)
The August
3 Letter provides
no
further details regarding how Triaxx would suffer harm (or of
what type) in the absence of a preliminary injunction.
3
Case 1:18-cv-04044-VM Document 80 Filed 09/17/18 Page 4 of 4
Even assuming that Triaxx is correct that the Trustee is
withholding funds that rightfully belong to Triaxx, the Court
is not persuaded that Triaxx has shown that it could not be
compensated by money damages should it succeed at trial. Nor
has Triaxx shown that waiting until after trial would cause
Triaxx irreparable harm.
(Compare August 3 Letter at 1 with
August 7 Letter at 2-3.) According to PIMCO, the Trustee is
"specifically
retaining
[Triaxx's]
pending resolution of this action."
has not made a
"clear showing"
requested
legal
fees
(Id. at 2.) Thus, Triaxx
that the Trustee could not
satisfy a money judgment after trial and that a preliminary
injunction is therefore necessary to avoid irreparable harm.
See Grand River, 481 F.3d at 66.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the motion of Triaxx Asset Management LLC
for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 50) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:
New York, New York
17 September 2018
4
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?