Life Flight Network, LLC v. Metro Aviation, Inc.
Amended Order signed on 1/17/2017 by Judge Anna J. Brown. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to submit a bond of $4,000.00 to the Court no later than January 24, 2017. (rrr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
LIFE FLIGHT NETWORK, LLC,
an Oregon Limited Liability
METRO AVIATION, INC.,
a Louisiana Corporation,
ROBERT D. NEWELL
Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP
1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue
Portland, OR 97201-5630
Attorneys for Plaintiff
EDWARD P. FITCH
Fitch Law Group PC
210 S.W. Fifth Street
Redmond, OR 97756
Attorneys for Defendant
On January 13, 2017, the Court issued an Order (#13) on
Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order in which the
Court erroneously specified Defendant was to pay a $4,000 bond
when, in fact, the Court intended Plaintiff to pay the bond.
Court issues this Amended Order to correct that error and to
order Plaintiff to pay the bond to the Court.
In light of the
error, the Court provides Plaintiff with additional time to
submit the bond.
The Court regrets the error.
This matter is before the Court on the issue of the amount
of any bond to be required in conjunction with the entry of a
stipulated Injunction following a hearing on Plaintiff's Motion
for Temporary Restraining Order.
On January 6, 2017, Plaintiff Life Flight Network, LLC,
filed a Complaint in Multnomah County Circuit Court alleging a
claim for breach of contract against Defendant Metro Aviation,
Plaintiff seeks an injunction "requiring Defendant to
fulfill its obligations to operate and maintain the required
Aircraft in accordance with the terms of .
Compl. at 3.
. the Agreement."
On January 6, 2017, Plaintiff also filed a Motion
for Temporary Restraining Order in which it seeks an order
maintaining the parties' status quo while this action is pending.
On January 9, 2017, Defendant removed the matter to this
Court on the ground of diversity jurisdiction.
On January 10, 2017, the Court heard oral argument on
Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order.
hearing the parties reached an agreement for an injunction to
maintain the status quo during the pendency of this action.
parties, however, disputed whether and in what amount a bond
Plaintiff filed its Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
in state court.
Defendant attached the Motion to its Notice of
Removal, and is in this Court's record as Docket No. 1.
should be required of Plaintiff.
The Court directed the parties
to file a stipulated form of Order that reflects the parties'
agreement to resolve Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining
The Court also directed the parties to submit a joint
statement reciting their positions and supporting authorities as
to the issue of a bond.
On January 10, 2017, the parties filed a stipulated form of
Injunction and submitted their joint statement to the Court via
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) provides:
No restraining order or preliminary injunction
shall issue except upon the giving of security by
the applicant, in such sum as the court deems
proper, for the payment of such costs and damages
as may be incurred or suffered by any party who is
found to have been wrongfully enjoined or
Rule 65 (c)
'"invests the district court with discretion as
to the amount of security required, i f any.'"
Couturier, 572 F. 3d 1067, 1086 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Jorgensen
v. Cassiday, 320 F.3d 906, 919 (9th Cir. 2003) (emphasis in
For example, a court may dispense with the
requirement that a plaintiff post a bond when a defendant shows
"no realistic likelihood of harm" as a result of the injunction.
Jorgensen, 320 F.3d at 919.
Similarly, a court may waive the
bond requirement when a case involves a matter of public
Save our Sonoran, Inc. v. Flowers,
408 F.3d 1113, 1126
Plaintiff asserts the Court should not require bond or, at
the least, require a bond no greater than $100 on the grounds
that (1) Plaintiff's requested injunctive relief will allow it
"to properly provide its emergency services, which .
public safety and welfare,n (2) "Defendant is unable to show any
realistic likelihood that it will be harmed by an order that
. requires it to comply with its preexisting contractual
obligations,n and (3) "even if Defendant could show
be required to incur any additional costs Defendant will be more
than capable of recouping any such additional costs during the
course of arbitration.n
Defendant, in turn, asserts Plaintiff should be required to
post a bond in the amount of either $89,697.10 or $62,505.00
based on either the "anticipated costs and damages incurred by
the defendant as a result of this actionn or the costs of the
rental engine to be installed in the aircraft at issue.
The Court notes it does not have before it the parties'
original agreement setting forth the terms of their underlying
In addition, neither of the parties has provided the
Court with an adequate explanation of the terms of the contract
or the particular events that gave rise to this action.
Notwithstanding those ambiguities, the Court finds there is
great public interest in the provision of Plaintiff's life-flight
services while the parties litigate their disputes.
On the other
hand, the record is insufficient for the Court to conclude that
Defendant is unlikely to suffer any harm.
The Court is also
unable to make any evaluation on this record as to whether
Defendant will be able to recoup any additional costs in
In the exercise of its discretion and on the extremely
limited record before it, the Court, therefore, concludes a bond
is warranted in light of the public interest in the provision of
life-flight services and that $4,000.00 is a sufficient sum for
that bond in balancing all competing interests established in
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to submit a bond of
$4,000.00 to the Court no later than January 24, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 17th day of January, 2017.
United States District Judge
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?