Case Caption: 3RC & Company v. Boynes Trucking System, et al.Case Number: S. Ct. Civ. No. 2015-0016Date: 07/23/2015Author: Cabret, Maria M. Citation: Summary:

A decision by the Superior Court denying a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, without holding a hearing, was not error. On a motion for preliminary injunction the moving party has the burden of making some showing on four factors: (1) whether the movant has shown a reasonable probability of success on the merits; (2) whether the movant will be irreparably injured by denial of the relief; (3) whether granting preliminary relief will result in even greater harm to the nonmoving party; and (4) whether granting the preliminary relief will be in the public interest. The Superior Court must evaluate the showing under a sliding-scale standard and make findings on each of the factors to determine whether-when they are considered together and weighed against one another-the moving party has made a clear showing that it is entitled to injunctive relief. Typically, it is appropriate-and necessary-for the trial judge to hold a hearing and make findings of fact, but where the moving party rests on allegations alone without submitting sufficient supporting evidence with its moving papers, it fails to present a colorable factual basis to support its claim for a preliminary injunction, and the Superior Court is not required to hold a hearing on the motion before summarily denying it. This is one of the rare cases where no showing at all was made on the first two factors, making a hearing unnecessary and any error in failing to consider the remaining factors was harmless. Here the plaintiff failed to make out any plausible claim for injunctive relief because loss of its investment in an alleged petroleum transportation business venture cannot constitute irreparable injury, since it can be remedied through money damages. Further, the evidence this party submitted undermined the allegations it made in its complaint, and therefore it failed to make any showing that it was likely to succeed on the merits. Accordingly, the January 8, 2015 order denying the motion for a preliminary injunction is affirmed.

Attachment: Open Document or Opinion