Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05428/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05428-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 05:0701 Maritime Subsidy Board

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRIOT CONTRACT SERVICES, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant.

 /

No. C-04-5428 MJJ

ORDER DENYING TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff Patriot Contract Services’ (“Plaintiff”) motion for a temporary

restraining order (“TRO”). Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Government from commencing the transition of the

operation and maintenance of two of the LMSRs at issue here from Plaintiff to Intervenor-Defendant

AMSEA. In response, Defendant United States has filed the Declaration of David Townsend, Associate

Counsel with the United States Military Sealift Command (“MSC”) in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. 

Having read and considered the papers, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for a TRO for the following

reasons.

Oral argument on Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction has long been scheduled for Tuesday,

April 26, 2005, at 9:30 am. The very same issues raised by the instant TRO motion are to be vetted at that

time. Plaintiff contends that a TRO is warranted here because the Government altered the scheduled date

on which the transition of two LMSRs from Patriot to AMSEA was to begin, from May 6, 2005, to

Monday, April 25, 2005, the day before the preliminary injunction hearing. Plaintiff claims that this suggests 

Case 3:04-cv-05428-MJJ Document 166 Filed 04/22/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1 The Court also notes that Plaintiff has had notice ofthis scheduling change since March 31, 2005, but

failed to bring it to the Court’s attention until the day before the transition was scheduled to begin. 

2

that the Government is attempting to effectuate the AMSEA ship operation contract before the Court has

had an opportunity to rule on its validity. The Court disagrees and finds that because the transition process

will have only just begun when the Court is scheduled to hear Plaintiff preliminary injunction motion, Plaintiff

will not suffer irreparable harm if a TRO does not issue in the meantime.1 Plaintiff also raises the issue that

AMSEA has improperly begun poaching Plaintiff’s personnel to staff the LMSRs for its contract. These

issues will be considered, as planned, on Tuesday, when the Court hears Plaintiff’s preliminary injunction

motion. Plaintiff’s TRO motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 22, 2005 /s 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-05428-MJJ Document 166 Filed 04/22/05 Page 2 of 2