Argonaut Insurance Company v. Orb Exploration LLC et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons stated, the court denies without prejudice Plaintiff's Verified Application for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction and Other Equitable Relief. (Doc. 4 ). (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 10/6/2015) (tln)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
ORB EXPLORATION, LLC
AND JOEL N. BROUSSARD,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 3:15-CV-2765-L

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court is Plaintiff Argonaut Insurance Company’s (“Plaintiff”) Verified Application
for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction and Other Equitable Relief (“Application)
(Doc. 4), filed August 24, 2015. On September 9, 2015, the court extended Defendants’ deadline to
respond to the Application in this case to September 22, 2015. No response was filed by Defendants.
After reviewing the Application, Plaintiff’s evidence, and applicable law, the court denies without
prejudice Plaintiff’s Verified Application for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction
and Other Equitable Relief. (Doc. 4).
I.

Background
On August 24, 2015, Plaintiff Argonaut Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) brought this action

against Defendants Orb Exploration, LLC and Joel N. Broussard (collectively, “Defendants”),
alleging that Defendants breached an indemnity agreement by not collateralizing Plaintiff after failing
to procure a release of the bonds, pay premiums due on the bonds, and provide Plaintiff with access
to Defendants’ books and records. Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order and preliminary

Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 1

injunction to obtain specific performance of the parties’ indemnity agreement; an order requiring
Defendants to provide it with access to their books and records; and an order compelling Defendants
to post $3,844,620 in collateral.
II.

Standard for Preliminary Injunction or Temporary Restraining Order
There are four prerequisites for the extraordinary relief of preliminary injunction or temporary

restraining order. A court may grant such relief only when the movant establishes that:
(1) there is a substantial likelihood that the movant will prevail on the
merits; (2) there is a substantial threat that irreparable harm will result
if the injunction is not granted; (3) the threatened injury [to the
movant] outweighs the threatened harm to the defendant; and (4) the
granting of the preliminary injunction will not disserve the public
interest.
Clark v. Prichard, 812 F.2d 991, 993 (5th Cir. 1987); Canal Auth. of the State of Florida v.
Callaway, 489 F.2d 567, 572 (5th Cir. 1974) (en banc). The party seeking such relief must satisfy
a cumulative burden of proving each of the four elements enumerated before a temporary restraining
order or preliminary injunction can be granted. Mississippi Power and Light Co. v. United Gas
Pipeline, 760 F.2d 618, 621 (5th Cir. 1985); Clark, 812 F.2d at 993. Otherwise stated, if a party fails
to meet any of the four requirements, the court cannot grant the temporary restraining order or
preliminary injunction.
III.

Discussion
Plaintiff contends that Defendants “may wrongfully transfer or otherwise dissipate funds that

could be used to indemnify” it before a judgment is entered in this case. Application 11(emphasis
added). Plaintiff further asserts that Defendants may wrongfully transfer or otherwise dispose of

Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 2

assets during the course of the litigation unless Plaintiff is allowed to access Defendants’ records to
determine their financial condition and identify assets to serve as collateral.
Plaintiff’s contention that it will suffer irreparable harm because Defendants “may” transfer
or dispose of assets is speculative at best. Plaintiff’s contention that adequate compensatory relief
will be unavailable is likewise speculative, as Plaintiff acknowledges that it lacks information
regarding Defendants’ financial condition and ability to pay a judgment if one is entered against them.
The court therefore concludes that Plaintiff has failed to meet all of the requirements necessary for
the extraordinary relief of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order.
IV.

Conclusion
For the reasons stated, the court denies without prejudice Plaintiff’s Verified Application

for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction and Other Equitable Relief. (Doc. 4).
It is so ordered this 6th day of October, 2015.

_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge

Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 3