CMR Alarms Inc v. R and L Fire and Security Specialists LLC et al
Filing
25
ORDER denying 23 Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief (as more fully set out). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 9/5/2018. (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 Motion for Injunctive Relief, filed August 7, 2018. On
August 21, 2018, defendants filed their response. Plaintiff did not file a reply. Based upon the
parties’ submissions, the Court makes its determination.
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 previously moved the Court for a temporary restraining order,
and on January 3, 2018, the Court denied plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff now moves this Court to
issue an injunction 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 an injunction 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 motion and Complaint and defendants’ response, the
Court finds that plaintiff has not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or that it
will suffer irreparable injury if this Court does not enter the requested injunction.1 In its motion,
Because all four requirements for an injunction must be satisfied, and because the Court finds
plaintiff has failed to satisfy both the likelihood of success on the merits and the irreparable injury
requirements, the Court declines to address the remaining two requirements.
1
2
plaintiff does not address its likelihood of success on the merits. Further, in its motion and
Complaint, plaintiff simply makes conclusory allegations regarding irreparable harm.
Specifically, plaintiff asserts:
3.
Unless enjoined 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 grant Injunctive Relief.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief 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 Motion for Injunctive Relief [docket no. 23].
IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of September, 2018.
3
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?