Global State Investment USA Inc et al v. LAS Properties LLC

Filing 30

ORDER denying 9 Motion for Preliminary Injunction Signed by Honorable David C Norton on 1/9/15.(akob, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
GLOBAL STATE INVESTMENT USA,
INC.; PINNACLE RIDGE CAPITAL LP;
PR GP SPE, LLC; and GS/PR GP, LLC,

)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
LAS PROPERTIES, LLC; individually and )
on behalf of Pinnacle Ridge, Ltd.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)

No. 2:14-cv-4494-DCN

ORDER

This matter is before the court on plaintiffs Global State Investments USA, Inc.;
Pinnacle Ridge Capital, LP; PR GP SPE, LLC; and GS/PR GP, LLC’s, collectively
“plaintiffs,” motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. On November 21, 2014, Plaintiffs filed
an action for injunctive and declaratory relief seeking to enjoin defendant LAS
Properties, LLC from pursuing an arbitration defendant filed against plaintiffs before the
American Arbitration Association in Houston, Texas. Plaintiffs ask the court to enjoin
the arbitration proceeding until the court resolves the question of arbitrability and rules
on the claims for relief set forth in their complaint. For the reasons set forth below, the
court denies plaintiffs’ motion.
The court evaluates a request for a TRO under the same rubric as a request for a
preliminary injunction. See Virginia v. Kelly, 29 F.3d 145, 147 (4th Cir. 1994) (applying
preliminary injunction standard to a request for a TRO). A preliminary injunction is “an
extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is
1

entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008); see
also Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689–90 (2008) (internal citation and quotation marks
omitted). A party seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate that (1) it is likely
to succeed on the merits, (2) it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in absence of the
injunction, (3) the balance of hardships tips in its favor, and (4) the injunction is in the
public interest. Metro. Reg’l Info. Sys. v. Am. Home Realty Network, Inc., 722 F.3d
591, 595 (4th Cir. 2013) (citing Winter, 555 U.S. at 20). “To obtain a preliminary
injunction under the Winter test, a movant must make a ‘clear showing’ of [the] four
requirements.” Alkebulanyahh v. Nettles, No. 10-2976, 2011 WL 2728453, at *3 (D.S.C.
July 13, 2011).  
After considering the Winter test, it is clear to this court that the factors weigh
against issuing a preliminary injunction. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. First, plaintiffs
cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits because there are significant factual
disputes as to whether plaintiffs are required to participate in the arbitration proceeding.
See e.g., Chattery Int’l, Inc. v. JoLida, Inc., 2011 WL 1230822, at *9 (D. Md. Mar. 28,
2011); Allegra Network LLC v. Reeder, 2009 WL 3734288, at *3 (E.D. Va. Nov. 4,
2009). Second, plaintiffs would not suffer irreparable injury if required to participate in
the arbitration proceeding. There are various forms of post-arbitration relief available to
plaintiffs under the Federal Arbitration Act. See 9 U.S.C. §§ 9-12 (expressly providing
various forms of post-award relief). Third, the balance of equities tips in favor of the
defendant. Finally, because it is likely that plaintiffs are subject to the arbitration
proceeding, the public interest would not be served by issuing an injunction.

2

Because plaintiffs cannot make a “clear showing” of the Winter factors,1 the court
DENIES plaintiffs’ motion.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

DAVID C. NORTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

January 9, 2015
Charleston, South Carolina

1

In that plaintiffs requested a timely decision from the court, the court reserves
the right to supplement this order with further legal and factual analysis, if necessary.

3