Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

18-814 - Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. v. Grand Automotive, Inc.


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
18-814 - Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. v. Grand Automotive, Inc.
April 30, 2018
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION: Based upon the foregoing analysis (PLEASE SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS), and mindful that, "a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion," NM v. Hebrew Acad. Long Beach, 155 F. Supp. 3d 247, 257 (E.D.N.Y. 2016), coupled with the fact that "[a]n award of an injunction is not something a plaintiff is entitled to as a matter of right, but rather it is an equitable remedy issued by a trial court, within the broad bounds of its discretion, after it weighs the potential benefits and harm to be incurred by the parties from the granting or denying of such relief," Moore, 409 F.3d at 510, and after careful consideration of the record in this matter, Plaintiffs motion seeking preliminary injunctive relief is GRANTED. Therefore, the limitations as contained in the TRO, which have been secured by a $2.5 million bond, see DE 32, shall remain in full force pending a decision on the merits in this case. SO Ordered by Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein on 4/30/2018. (Ortiz, Grisel)