Casco, Inc. v. John Deere Construction Company & Forestry Company
OPINION AND ORDER: Denying 11 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; Noted 27 Motion In Compliance and Setting Case Schedule. Signed by Judge Gustavo A. Gelpi on 6/24/2013. (TC) Modified on 6/25/2013 as to title (er).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
JOHN DEERE CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY & FORESTRY COMPANY,
Civil No. 13-1325 (GAG)
OPINION AND ORDER
Presently before the court is the joint motion filed by the parties (Docket No. 27) in response
to the court’s request to consolidate the requests for injunctive relief and trial on the merits (Docket
No. 26). After reviewing the joint motion, the court DENIES the motion for preliminary injunction
and places the case on a fast-track to determine the merits.
In this case, Plaintiff only seeks a preliminary injunction until trial on the merits. Plaintiff
does not seek a permanent injunction as prospective relief. “A district court faced with a motion for
a preliminary injunction must weigh four factors: ‘(1) the plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the
merits; (2) the potential for irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction; (3) whether issuing an
injunction will burden the defendants less than denying an injunction would burden the plaintiffs;
and (4) the effect, if any, on the public interest.’” Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. Bldg. No. 19,
Inc., 704 F.3d 44, 48 (1st Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Weikert, 504 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir.
2007)). Because Plaintiff does not seek permanent equitable relief, the court finds an accelerated
trial schedule will alleviate the need to issue a preliminary injunction. The proposed preliminary
injunction will only operate from the time of its issuance until the conclusion of trial. As proposed
by the parties, the court would not hold a preliminary injunction hearing until late August, then hold
trial sometime in April, 2014. (See Docket No. 27 at 5-6.) Under this time-line, there is the
potential of Plaintiff suffering irreparable harm during the proposed ten-month pendency of this
matter. But the court envisions a much shorter time period for trial and believes that the fast-track
schedule will reduce any concern of irreparable harm.
Civil No. 13-1325 (GAG)
The benefits of this schedule are that the parties will receive a swift resolution on the merits
of the claims, Plaintiff will have the jury trial it demands, and the court will not have to grapple with
evaluating differing evidentiary standards. Finally, the court is concerned that if it resolves the
motion for preliminary injunction quickly, and then grants and extended period for discovery, the
parties may find themselves in a suspended state. One party will enjoy the benefits of the injunctive
relief, a judicially enforced contractual relationship. That party may not be motivated to quickly
complete discovery. Alternatively, the party not befitting from the preliminary injunction
determination may want to quickly proceed to the merits.
Therefore, the court orders the parties to follow this schedule:
Rule 26 Initial Disclosures, including Rule 26(a)(2)(A) disclosures due by July 15,
Expert reports due August 15, 2013.
Fact discovery completed by August 30, 2013.
Expert discovery finalized by September 1, 2013.
Dispositive motion deadline September 20, 2013.
Trial to begin November 2013.
Pursuant to the opinion and analysis above, the court DENIES the motion for preliminary
injunction (Docket No. 11). The parties shall follow the trial schedule above, which has been fast-
tracked to quickly resolve the merits of the case. If the parties agree to another timetable, the court
will consider the same. Also, the parties may want to revisit the matter of consenting to proceed
before a Magistrate Judge.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico this 24th day of June 2013.
s/Gustavo A. Gelpí
GUSTAVO A. GELPI
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?