Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00232/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00232-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Invitrogen Corporation, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Employers Insurance Company of Wausau

a/k/a Employers Insurance of Wausau, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 06-232-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently, before the Court is Plaintiffs' Invitrogen Corporation ("Invitrogen") and

Kettlebrook Insurance Company ("Kettlebrook") (collectively "Plaintiffs") Motion for a

preliminary injunction against Defendant Employers Insurance Company of Wausau

("Defendant" or "Wausau"). (Dkt#2). After reviewing the pleadings and holding oral

argument on February 13, 2006, the Court issues the following order.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden in seeking to preliminary enjoin

Defendant. Specifically, Defendant Wausau is preliminary enjoined from pursuing the

arbitration of the dispute of reinsurance payments it contends are owed to it under a

reinsurance contract between it and Plaintiff Kettlebrook. In reviewing the dispute and

pleadings offered by the parties it is clear that this dispute does not touch on the reinsurance

contract entered into between these parties, but rather will be determined by the terms of the

settlement agreement entered into between Plaintiff Invitrogen and Defendant finalized on

April 7, 2003. As such, Plaintiffs have demonstrated a high likelihood of success on the

Case 2:06-cv-00232-MHM Document 14 Filed 02/17/06 Page 1 of 2
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

- 2 -

merits regarding their declaratory claim that they are not bound to the arbitration clause

found within the language of the reinsurance contract. See First Brands Corp. v. Fred

Meyer, Inc., 809 F.2d 1378, 1381 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Moreover, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have also demonstrated the possibility of

irreparable harm if the arbitration proceedings are not enjoined. Specifically, Plaintiffs have

set forth persuasive authority suggesting that the costs and fees associated with an

unnecessary arbitration as well as the potential cost of setting aside any unfavorable

arbitration result rises to the level of irreparable harm. See McLaughlin Gormley King Co.

v. Teminix Intern. Co., 105 F.3d 1192, 1194 (8th Cir. 1997); PaineWebber Inc. v. Hartmann,

921 F.2d 507, 514 (3rd Cir. 1990), rejected on other grounds, United States v. Pool &

Canfield, 778 F. Supp. 1088, 1092 (W.D. Mo. 1991). Therefore, Plaintiffs have satisfied the

second element of the preliminary injunction inquiry. First Brands Corp., 809 F.2d at 1381.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting Plaintiffs' Motion for a preliminary injunction.

(Dtk. #2). Because of the agreement between the parties, no bond will be assessed. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties will meet and confer regarding future

handling of Plaintiff's declaratory claim regarding arbitration. Specifically, the parties are

to provide a joint plan of action and their respective proposed orders or joint proposed order

by March 6, 2006.

DATED this 16th day of February, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00232-MHM Document 14 Filed 02/17/06 Page 2 of 2