McConnell v. Reno Auto Wrecking Inc
Filing
7
Memorandum Opinion and Order: Before the Court is Plaintiff Glenn McConnell's ("McConnell") Application for Temporary Restraining Order, which is contained within his Original Complaint (Doc. 1 ). In the Application, McConnell req uests that the Court issue a temporary restraining order (TRO), without notice to Defendant Reno Auto Wrecking, Inc. ("Reno"), to prevent Reno from tampering with or moving an automobile involved in an accident that caused injuries to McConnell. Doc. 1 , Appl. for TRO 5. For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES the Application. (Ordered by Judge Jane J Boyle on 3/24/2016) (ndt)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
GLENN MCCONNELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
RENO AUTO WRECKING, INC. a/k/a
RENO AUTO WRECKING, LLC a/k/a
NORTH NEVADA AUTO WRECKING
GROUP,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-CV-0823-B
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Glenn McConnell’s (“McConnell”) Application for Temporary
Restraining Order, which is contained within his Original Complaint (Doc. 1). In the Application,
McConnell requests that the Court issue a temporary restraining order (TRO), without notice to
Defendant Reno Auto Wrecking, Inc. (“Reno”), to prevent Reno from tampering with or moving
an automobile involved in an accident that caused injuries to McConnell. Doc. 1, Appl. for TRO
5. For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES the Application.
McConnell alleges that he was injured in an accident involving the subject vehicle in August
2015, and that he has entered into a contract with Reno, through his attorneys, to purchase the
vehicle, which is “key evidence in [a] potential products liability action.” Id. ¶¶ 4–5; Doc. 1-3, Ex.
C, Invoice. McConnell seeks to preserve the vehicle in its current condition, but Reno allegedly
refuses to release it to him or his attorneys, despite the contract. Id. ¶ 5. As a result, McConnell
argues, “there is true concern for the safekeeping of this evidence.” Id. He therefore seeks this TRO,
-1-
arguing that he will suffer irreparable harm if it is not granted and that there is no time to give notice
to Reno. Id. ¶ 12.
Temporary restraining orders, and motions seeking them, are governed by Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 65(b). For a court to issue a TRO without notice to the adverse party, two
conditions must be met: (1) “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that
immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party
can be heard in opposition”; and (2) “the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to
give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A)–(B). To
prevail, an applicant must establish: “(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a
substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is not issued, (3) that the threatened injury
if the injunction is denied outweighs any harm that will result if the injunction is granted, and (4)
that the grant of an injunction will not disserve the public interest.” Altairia Corp. v. Woodbolt
Distrib., LLC, No. A-14-CA-0471, 2014 WL 3121899, at *1 (W.D. Tex. July 7, 2014) (quoting
Byrum v. Landreth, 566 F.3d 442, 445 (5th Cir. 2009)).
Here, McConnell has failed to show that there is a “substantial threat” that Reno will tamper
with or move the vehicle. The only facts before the Court are that Reno possesses the vehicle, the
vehicle is valuable evidence in a potential lawsuit, McConnell’s attorneys have entered into a
contract to purchase the vehicle, and Reno has not released the vehicle to them. Doc. 1, Appl. for
TRO ¶¶ 4–7; Doc. 1-3, Ex. C, Invoice. To infer from these allegations that Reno is likely to tamper
with the vehicle would be pure speculation. Furthermore, McConnell has not given any reasons why
notice to Reno should not be required—he merely states, in conclusory fashion, that “[t]here is no
time for notice.” Doc. 1, Appl. for TRO ¶ 12. Therefore, McConnell has failed to make the requisite
-2-
showing, and his application for an ex parte TRO must be DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 24, 2016.
________________________________
JANE J. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-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?