United States District Court, D. Arizona
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Honorable Steven P. Logan United States District Judge
The
Court has reviewed Plaintiff Scottsdale Gas Company LLC's
(the “Plaintiff”) Application for Temporary
Restraining Order Without Notice and Preliminary Injunction,
wherein the Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Tesoro Refining
& Marketing Company LLC and Treasure Franchise Company
LLC (together, the “Defendants”) have employed
illegal and improper acts to terminate a gasoline supply
contract with Plaintiff. (Doc. 10)
I.
Legal Standard and Discussion
A
request for a TRO is analyzed under the same standards as a
request for a preliminary injunction. Stuhlbarg Int'l
Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d
832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). “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.'” Lopez v.
Brewer, 680 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting
Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per
curiam) (emphasis omitted); see also Winter v. Natural
Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation
omitted) (“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary
remedy never awarded as of right”).
“A
plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must show that (1)
he is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) he is likely to
suffer irreparable harm without an injunction, (3) the
balance of equities tips in his favor, and (4) an injunction
is in the public interest. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20.
“But if a plaintiff can only show that there are
‘serious questions going to the merits'- a lesser
showing than likelihood of success on the merits- then a
preliminary injunction may still issue if the ‘balance
of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff's favor,'
and the other two Winter factors are
satisfied.” Shell Offshore, Inc. v. Greenpeace,
Inc., 709 F.3d 1281, 1291 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting
Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d
1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011)). Under this serious questions
variant of the Winter test, “[t]he elements .
. . must be balanced, so that a stronger showing of one
element may offset a weaker showing of another.”
Lopez, 680 F.3d at 1072.
Plaintiff's
allegations that Defendants have sought to retrieve gasoline
through illegal means and prevent Plaintiff from processing
credit card transactions leads the Court to find that
Plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence
of a temporary restraining order pending a hearing on the
merits of a preliminary injunction. The allegations in the
complaint demonstrate that Plaintiff has a strong likelihood
of success on the merits of its claims under the Petroleum
Marketing Practices Act, and a balance of the equities in
this case clearly tips in favor of maintaining the status quo
for Plaintiff's operating business. Finally, the Court
finds that a temporary restraining order would protect the
public interest by maintaining the status quo until a
preliminary injunction hearing can be held. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's
Application for Temporary Restraining Order Without Notice
and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 10) is
granted.
IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Tesoro Refining
& Marketing Company LLC and Treasure Franchise Company
LLC are prohibited from (i) terminating the Contractor Dealer
Gasoline Agreement dated June 12, 2006; (ii) acting on any
reversionary leasehold interest in the premises located at
10809 North Frank Lloyd Wright Blvd. in Scottsdale, Arizona;
(iii) taking any extrajudicial actions affecting Plaintiff or
its ability to operate a retail store and gas station at
10809 North Frank Lloyd Wright Blvd. in Scottsdale, Arizona;
and (iv) causing any agents, employees or contractors of
Defendants from entering onto the premises located at 10809
North Frank Lloyd Wright Blvd. in Scottsdale, Arizona, except
for performing acts in the ordinary course of business.
IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Tesoro Refining
& Marketing Company LLC and Treasure Franchise Company
LLC shall continue their relationship with Plaintiff as
supplier of gasoline and with respect to the processing of
credit cards in the same manner as before Defendants sought
to terminate the Contractor Dealer Gasoline Agreement dated
June 12, 2006.
IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Tesoro Refining
& Marketing Company LLC and Treasure Franchise Company
LLC must file a response to Plaintiffs Application for
Temporary Restraining Order Without Notice and Preliminary
Injunction (Doc. 10) no later than 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday,
October 8, 2019.
IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a hearing on Plaintiffs
Application for Temporary Restraining Order Without Notice
and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 10) on Thursday, October 10,
2019 at 1:30 p.m., before the Honorable Judge Steven P.
Logan, United States District Judge, in the Sandra Day
O'Connor United States Courthouse, ...