United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
D. PETERSON DISTRICT JUDGE.
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
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.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
TO BE FOLLOWED ON MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
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.
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.
movant must serve the opposing party
promptly with copies of all materials filed.
Failure to comply with provisions A and B may result in
denial of the motion for this reasons alone.
is the movant's obligation to establish the factual basis
for a grant of relief.
establishing the factual basis necessary for a grant of the