Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Goodall Oil Co. v. Pilot Corp.

United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin

May 30, 2019

GOODALL OIL COMPANY and MICHAEL RYAN, Plaintiffs,
v.
PILOT CORPORATION and PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS, LLC, Defendants.

          ORDER

          JAMES D. PETERSON DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiffs Goodall Oil Company and Michael Ryan have filed a motion for a temporary restraining order or, in the alternative, a motion for a preliminary injunction against defendants Pilot Corporation and Pilot Travel Center, LLC. Dkt. 2. The motion for a temporary restraining order is DENIED because the court isn't persuaded that plaintiffs have made the extraordinary showing necessary to obtain relief without giving defendants an opportunity to respond. Plaintiffs allege that defendants are threatening to breach an agreement that gives plaintiffs the right to haul motor fuels for defendants, but plaintiffs don't allege that defendants have breached the contract yet or cited any evidence showing that they would suffer irreparable harm during the time that would be necessary to resolve a motion for a preliminary injunction.

         Plaintiffs' alternative request for a preliminary injunction is DENIED without prejudice for three reasons. First, plaintiffs' complaint doesn't adequately allege a basis for this court to exercise jurisdiction. Although plaintiffs rely on 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as a basis for jurisdiction, they have not identified plaintiff Michael Ryan's domicile or the citizenship of the members of Pilot Travel Centers, LLC. Without that information, the court can't determine whether there is complete diversity as required by § 1332. See Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729, 731 (7th Cir. 1998); Heinen v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 671 F.3d 669, 670 (7th Cir. 2012). Second, plaintiffs didn't follow this court's procedures for obtaining preliminary injunctive relief, which require parties to file proposed findings of fact. The court has attached those procedures. Third, plaintiffs' motion ignores Rule 65(c), which requires parties seeking preliminary injunctive relief to provide security. Once plaintiffs correct these defects and file proof of service, the court will set an appropriately prompt briefing schedule. If plaintiffs do not file an amended complaint showing a basis for jurisdiction by June 12, 2019, the court will dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

         IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

         PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED ON MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

         NOTE WELL: It is the duty of the parties to present to the court, in the manner required by this procedure, all facts and law necessary to the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of this matter. The court is not obliged to search the record for facts or to research the law when deciding a motion for injunctive relief.

         I. NOTICE

         A. It is the movant's obligation to provide actual and immediate notice to the opposing party of the filing of the motion and of the date set for a hearing, if any.

         B. The movant must serve the opposing party promptly with copies of all materials filed.

         C. Failure to comply with provisions A and B may result in denial of the motion for this reasons alone.

         II. MOVANT'S OBLIGATIONS

         A. It is the movant's obligation to establish the factual basis for a grant of relief.

         1. In establishing the factual basis necessary for a grant of the motion, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.