United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
KATHRYN H. VRATIL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion For
Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, And For
Immediate Hearing On Preliminary Injunction And Memorandum In
Support (Doc. #3) filed January 7, 2019. On January 15,
2019, the Court heard oral argument on plaintiff's motion
for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
For reasons stated below, the Court sustains plaintiff's
motion in part.
Preliminary Injunction Standards
purpose of a preliminary injunction is “to preserve the
status quo pending the outcome of the case.”
Tri-State Generation & Transmission Assn., Inc. v.
Shoshone River Power, Inc., 805 F.2d 351, 355 (10th Cir.
1986). A preliminary injunction is a drastic and
extraordinary remedy, and courts do not grant it as a matter
of right. Paul's Beauty Coll. v. United States,
885 F.Supp. 1468, 1471 (D.Kan. 1995); 11A Charles Alan
Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal
Practice & Procedure § 2948, at 128-29 &
nn. 3, 6-7 (1995). To obtain a preliminary injunction,
plaintiff must establish (1) a substantial likelihood that it
will eventually prevail on the merits; (2) irreparable injury
unless the preliminary injunction issues; (3) that the
threatened injury outweighs whatever damage the proposed
preliminary injunction may cause defendants; and (4) that the
preliminary injunction, if issued, will not be adverse to the
public interest. Tri-State, 805 F.2d at 355.
hearing oral argument and review of plaintiff's verified
complaint and motion for temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction, and upon determining that
plaintiff's counsel has delivered a copy of the pleadings
to counsel for the City of Lansing and that defense counsel
received notice of the time and place of this application,
the Court finds that the temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction sought are reasonable. Further, it
appears that a temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction are necessary to immediately and sufficiently
protect any due process rights which the United States
Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment may afford to
plaintiff, and that immediate relief is necessary to ensure
that the status quo can be maintained pending final judgment
in this case.
the Court finds as follows:
1. A temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction
are appropriate because plaintiff has shown a substantial
likelihood of success on the merits of its argument.
2. Unless the City is restrained, plaintiff will suffer
immediate and irreparable harm, as plaintiff will otherwise
be deprived of its fundamental rights.
3. The harm to plaintiff if a temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction are not granted outweighs harm to the
City if they are granted. Without such relief, the City could
enter into a contract with Linaweaver Construction Company,
Inc. for the Northwest Relief Sewer portion of the project,
rendering any subsequent determination by the Court
ineffectual, and potentially permanently damage
plaintiff's relationship with its surety through reliance
on the bid bond. Further, the City will incur no measurable
harm if it is temporarily prevented from contracting for
performance of the work until the Court hears the merits of
this case (which it intends to do on an expedited schedule).
4. The interests of the public will not be disserved by this
5. Plaintiff has no other adequate remedy at law to protect
the constitutional rights it alleges were infringed upon by
the City's discriminatory award of and imminently
impending contracting for and performance of the project
on the foregoing, the Court concludes that pending final
judgment in this case, plaintiff is entitled to a temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction which prevents
the City of Lansing, Kansas from (1) awarding the project to
any party other than plaintiff; and (2) executing a written
agreement, issuing a notice to proceed or otherwise directing
the performance of ...