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

**R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT**  **. C**  **ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED**
**ON OR AFTER J** **ANUARY 1,**  **2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY**  **F EDERAL**  **R ULE OF**  **A PPELLATE**  **P ROCEDURE**  **32.1 AND THIS COURT**  **’ S**  **L OCAL**  **R ULE**  **32.1.1. W**  **HEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A**
**DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT ,**  **A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE F**  **EDERAL A** **PPENDIX 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 .**  **At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals** 1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,** 3 **on the 16 th** **day of December, two thousand fifteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,** 6 **PIERRE N. LEVAL,** 7 **GUIDO CALABRESI,** 8 **Circuit Judges**

**.** 9 10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 11 **NNEWI UNION NEW YORK TRI-STATE, INC.,** 12 **Plaintiff-Appellant ,**  13 14 **-v.- 14-4446-L** 15 **15-206-Con** 16 **NNEWI USA, INC., NNEWI USA, NEW YORK,** 17 **INC.,** 18 **Defendants-Appellees**

**.** 19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 20 21 **FOR APPELLANT:** Ositadinma Benjamin Okeke, Law 22 Office of O. Benjamin Okeke, 23 Brooklyn, NY. 24 25 **FOR APPELLEE:** Yoram Nachimovsky, Yoram 26 Nachimovsky, PLLC, New York, NY. 27 28

1Appeal of a denial of a preliminary injunction by the 1 United States District Court for the Eastern District of New 2 York (Chen, J .). 3 4 **UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED** 5 **AND DECREED**that the judgment of the district court be 6
**AFFIRMED**

. 7 8 Nnewi Union New York Tri-State, Inc. (“Tri-State”) 9 appeals from the order of the United States District Court 10 for the Eastern District of New York (Chen, J .) denying Tri11 State’s motions for a temporary restraining order and 12 preliminary injunction against Nnewi USA, Inc. (“NUSA”) and 13 Nnewi USA, New York, Inc. (“NNY”). We assume the parties’ 14 familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural 15 history, and the issues presented for review. 16 17 This case concerns a dispute among three domestic non18 profit organizations with ties to Nnewi, Nigeria. NUSA is 19 an umbrella organization for Nnewi-related organizations in 20 the United States. Tri-State and NNY are Nnewi-related 21 organizations based in the New York City metropolitan area. 22 From 1998 until 2013, Tri-State was the local chapter for 23 NUSA; since 2013, NUSA’s local chapter has been NNY. Tri24 State’s lawsuit arises out of its displacement as NUSA’s 25 local affiliate. 26 27 On November 24, 2014, Tri-State sought a temporary 28 restraining order and preliminary injunction. Two days 29 later, the Honorable William F. Kuntz, III, sitting as the 30 Miscellaneous Judge, denied both after concluding that Tri31 State had “failed to establish the prerequisites for 32 injunctive relief” because it had not shown (i) it was 33 “likely to suffer irreparable injury if such relief is 34 denied,” (ii) there was “a likelihood of success on the 35 merits,” or (iii) the “balance of hardships tip[] decidedly” 36 in its favor. On December 22, 2014, Tri-State once again 37 sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary 38 injunction, filing a nearly identical motion to the one 39 submitted a month prior. Once again, with the Honorable 40 Pamela K. Chen sitting as the Miscellaneous Judge, Tri41 State’s two motions were denied. Judge Chen denied the 42 motion because a “nearly identical motion” had already been 43 denied and was now being “essentially re-filed.” Tri-State 44 appealed. 45 46

2In its appeal from Judge Chen’s ruling, Tri-State 1 argues that Judge Kuntz’s denial of its application failed 2 to “state the findings and conclusions that support its 3 action,” as required by Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of 4 Civil Procedure. Tri-State argues that because Judge 5 Kuntz’s ruling was deficient, Judge Chen could not have 6 relied on it. We review the district court’s denial of a 7 preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. New York 8 Progress and Protection PAC v. Walsh , 733 F.3d 483, 486 (2d 9 Cir. 2013). “Such an abuse occurs when the district court 10 bases its ruling on an incorrect legal standard or on a 11 clearly erroneous assessment of the facts.” Bronx Household 12 of Faith v. Bd. of Educ. of City of N.Y. , 331 F.3d 342, 348 13 (2d Cir. 2003). 14 15 Judge Chen stated the findings and conclusions that 16 justified her ruling, which were that essentially the same 17 motion had already been denied by Judge Kuntz. A party that 18 is dissatisfied with the denial of a preliminary injunction 19 may appeal the denial under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), but is 20 not at liberty to resubmit the same application to a 21 different judge, hoping for a different result. 22 23 As for the merits of the district court’s order denying 24 Tri-State’s motions for a temporary restraining order and 25 preliminary injunction, we discern no abuse of discretion. 26 27 Accordingly, and finding no merit in Tri-State’s other 28 arguments, we hereby **AFFIRM** the order of the district court. 29 30 FOR THE COURT: 31 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 32 33

3