Nnewi Union New York Tri-State, Inc. v. Nnewi USA, Inc. , 626 F. App'x 17 ( 2015 )

14-4446-L
Nnewi Union New York Tri-State, Inc. v. Nnewi USA, Inc.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED
ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE
PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A
DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST
SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 16th day of December, two thousand fifteen.
5
6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,
7 PIERRE N. LEVAL,
8 GUIDO CALABRESI,
9 Circuit Judges.
10
11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
12 NNEWI UNION NEW YORK TRI-STATE, INC.,
13 Plaintiff-Appellant,
14
15 -v.- 14-4446-L
16 15-206-Con
17 NNEWI USA, INC., NNEWI USA, NEW YORK,
18 INC.,
19 Defendants-Appellees.
20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
21
22 FOR APPELLANT: Ositadinma Benjamin Okeke, Law
23 Office of O. Benjamin Okeke,
24 Brooklyn, NY.
25
26 FOR APPELLEE: Yoram Nachimovsky, Yoram
27 Nachimovsky, PLLC, New York, NY.
28
1
1 Appeal of a denial of a preliminary injunction by the
2 United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
3 York (Chen, J.).
4
5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED
6 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be
7 AFFIRMED.
8
9 Nnewi Union New York Tri-State, Inc. (“Tri-State”)
10 appeals from the order of the United States District Court
11 for the Eastern District of New York (Chen, J.) denying Tri-
12 State’s motions for a temporary restraining order and
13 preliminary injunction against Nnewi USA, Inc. (“NUSA”) and
14 Nnewi USA, New York, Inc. (“NNY”). We assume the parties’
15 familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural
16 history, and the issues presented for review.
17
18 This case concerns a dispute among three domestic non-
19 profit organizations with ties to Nnewi, Nigeria. NUSA is
20 an umbrella organization for Nnewi-related organizations in
21 the United States. Tri-State and NNY are Nnewi-related
22 organizations based in the New York City metropolitan area.
23 From 1998 until 2013, Tri-State was the local chapter for
24 NUSA; since 2013, NUSA’s local chapter has been NNY. Tri-
25 State’s lawsuit arises out of its displacement as NUSA’s
26 local affiliate.
27
28 On November 24, 2014, Tri-State sought a temporary
29 restraining order and preliminary injunction. Two days
30 later, the Honorable William F. Kuntz, III, sitting as the
31 Miscellaneous Judge, denied both after concluding that Tri-
32 State had “failed to establish the prerequisites for
33 injunctive relief” because it had not shown (i) it was
34 “likely to suffer irreparable injury if such relief is
35 denied,” (ii) there was “a likelihood of success on the
36 merits,” or (iii) the “balance of hardships tip[] decidedly”
37 in its favor. On December 22, 2014, Tri-State once again
38 sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary
39 injunction, filing a nearly identical motion to the one
40 submitted a month prior. Once again, with the Honorable
41 Pamela K. Chen sitting as the Miscellaneous Judge, Tri-
42 State’s two motions were denied. Judge Chen denied the
43 motion because a “nearly identical motion” had already been
44 denied and was now being “essentially re-filed.” Tri-State
45 appealed.
46
2
1 In its appeal from Judge Chen’s ruling, Tri-State
2 argues that Judge Kuntz’s denial of its application failed
3 to “state the findings and conclusions that support its
4 action,” as required by Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of
5 Civil Procedure. Tri-State argues that because Judge
6 Kuntz’s ruling was deficient, Judge Chen could not have
7 relied on it. We review the district court’s denial of a
8 preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. New York
9 Progress and Protection PAC v. Walsh, 733 F.3d 483, 486 (2d
10 Cir. 2013). “Such an abuse occurs when the district court
11 bases its ruling on an incorrect legal standard or on a
12 clearly erroneous assessment of the facts.” Bronx Household
13 of Faith v. Bd. of Educ. of City of N.Y., 331 F.3d 342, 348
14 (2d Cir. 2003).
15
16 Judge Chen stated the findings and conclusions that
17 justified her ruling, which were that essentially the same
18 motion had already been denied by Judge Kuntz. A party that
19 is dissatisfied with the denial of a preliminary injunction
20 may appeal the denial under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), but is
21 not at liberty to resubmit the same application to a
22 different judge, hoping for a different result.
23
24 As for the merits of the district court’s order denying
25 Tri-State’s motions for a temporary restraining order and
26 preliminary injunction, we discern no abuse of discretion.
27
28 Accordingly, and finding no merit in Tri-State’s other
29 arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the order of the district court.
30
31 FOR THE COURT:
32 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK
33
3