CMR Alarms Inc v. R and L Fire and Security Specialists LLC et al

Filing 11

ORDER denying 7 plaintiff's Application for Temporary Restraining Order (as more fully set out). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 1/3/2018. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CMR ALARMS, INC.,
an Oklahoma Domestic For Profit
Business Corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs.
R & L FIRE AND SECURITY
SPECIALISTS, LLC, A KANSAS
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, and
RAY LASKOWSKI, OWNER,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-17-1352-M

ORDER
Before the Court is plaintiff’s Application for Temporary Restraining Order, filed
December 28, 2017. On December 19, 2017, plaintiff filed the instant action against defendants,
alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract, (2) declaratory judgment, and (3)
injunctive relief. In its Complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendants made material misstatements
in violation of the Account and Purchase and Sale Agreement (“Agreement”) entered into by the
parties and that defendants are obligated to indemnify and hold plaintiff harmless for damages
which it may suffer. See Complaint at ¶ 12. Plaintiff further alleges that defendants have failed
to transfer the telephone as required under the Agreement, have violated the non-interference
clause of the Agreement through conduct reasonably anticipated to adversely affect plaintiff’s
interest in the subscriber agreements purchased by plaintiff, have failed to disclose the loss of
accounts, and have attempted to cancel customer accounts by forging the name of Mike on the
documents. See Complaint at ¶¶ 13-16. Plaintiff now moves this Court to issue a temporary
restraining order directing defendants to (1) transfer the telephone line according to the terms of

the Agreement, (2) cease and desist from the cancellation of any customer monitoring agreements,
(3) cease and desist from contacting any customers to redirect payments to defendants, and (4)
turn over to plaintiff from the effective date of the Agreement all sums and payments collected by
defendants for services and contracts purchased by plaintiff.
A movant seeking a temporary restraining order must show: (1) a substantial likelihood of
success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury to the movant if the injunction is denied; (3) the
threatened injury to the movant outweighs the injury to the party opposing the preliminary
injunction; and (4) the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest. Dominion Video
Satellite, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 269 F.3d 1149, 1154 (10th Cir. 2001). “Because a
preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, the movant’s right to relief must be clear and
unequivocal.” Id. (internal citation omitted). Whether to grant a preliminary injunction rests
within the sound discretion of the trial court. United States v. Power Eng’g Co., 191 F.3d 1224,
1230 (10th Cir. 1999). Further, “[a] plaintiff suffers irreparable injury when the court would be
unable to grant an effective monetary remedy after a full trial because such damages would be
inadequate or difficult to ascertain.” Dominion Video, 269 F.3d at 1156.
Having carefully reviewed plaintiff’s application and Complaint, the Court finds that
plaintiff has not shown that it will suffer irreparable injury if this Court does not enter the requested
temporary restraining order.1 In its application and Complaint, plaintiff simply makes conclusory
allegations regarding irreparable harm. Specifically, plaintiff asserts:
3.
Unless restrained by the Court, there remains the potential of
additional and immediate and irreparable harm to the Plaintiff.
4.
The Plaintiff has no other adequate remedy but for the Court
to issue a Temporary Restraining Order, without Notice.
Because all four requirements for a temporary restraining order must be satisfied, and because
the Court finds plaintiff has failed to satisfy the irreparable injury requirement, the Court declines
to address the remaining three requirements.

1

2

Application for Temporary Restraining Order at 2. Plaintiff, however, never sets forth specifically
what irreparable harm it will suffer. Additionally, plaintiff does not set forth why a monetary
remedy after a full trial would not be effective and sufficient.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s Application for Temporary Restraining Order
[docket no. 7].
IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of January, 2018.

3