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)

Download PDF
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?