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

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED

ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE

PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A

DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX 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.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United

3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,

on the 16th 4 day of December, two thousand fifteen.

5

6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,

7 PIERRE N. LEVAL,

8 GUIDO CALABRESI,

9 Circuit Judges.

10

11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

12 NNEWI UNION NEW YORK TRI-STATE, INC., 

13 Plaintiff-Appellant,

14

15 -v.- 14-4446-L

16 15-206-Con

17 NNEWI USA, INC., NNEWI USA, NEW YORK,

18 INC., 

19 Defendants-Appellees.

20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

21

22 FOR APPELLANT: Ositadinma Benjamin Okeke, Law

23 Office of O. Benjamin Okeke,

24 Brooklyn, NY. 

25

26 FOR APPELLEE: Yoram Nachimovsky, Yoram

27 Nachimovsky, PLLC, New York, NY. 

28

1
1 Appeal of a denial of a preliminary injunction by the

2 United States District Court for the Eastern District of New

3 York (Chen, J.).

4

5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED

6 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be

7 AFFIRMED. 

8

9 Nnewi Union New York Tri-State, Inc. (“Tri-State”)

10 appeals from the order of the United States District Court

11 for the Eastern District of New York (Chen, J.) denying Tri12 State’s motions for a temporary restraining order and

13 preliminary injunction against Nnewi USA, Inc. (“NUSA”) and

14 Nnewi USA, New York, Inc. (“NNY”). We assume the parties’

15 familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural

16 history, and the issues presented for review.

17

18 This case concerns a dispute among three domestic non19 profit organizations with ties to Nnewi, Nigeria. NUSA is

20 an umbrella organization for Nnewi-related organizations in

21 the United States. Tri-State and NNY are Nnewi-related

22 organizations based in the New York City metropolitan area. 

23 From 1998 until 2013, Tri-State was the local chapter for

24 NUSA; since 2013, NUSA’s local chapter has been NNY. Tri25 State’s lawsuit arises out of its displacement as NUSA’s

26 local affiliate.

27

28 On November 24, 2014, Tri-State sought a temporary

29 restraining order and preliminary injunction. Two days

30 later, the Honorable William F. Kuntz, III, sitting as the

31 Miscellaneous Judge, denied both after concluding that Tri32 State had “failed to establish the prerequisites for

33 injunctive relief” because it had not shown (i) it was

34 “likely to suffer irreparable injury if such relief is

35 denied,” (ii) there was “a likelihood of success on the

36 merits,” or (iii) the “balance of hardships tip[] decidedly”

37 in its favor. On December 22, 2014, Tri-State once again

38 sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary

39 injunction, filing a nearly identical motion to the one

40 submitted a month prior. Once again, with the Honorable

41 Pamela K. Chen sitting as the Miscellaneous Judge, Tri42 State’s two motions were denied. Judge Chen denied the

43 motion because a “nearly identical motion” had already been

44 denied and was now being “essentially re-filed.” Tri-State

45 appealed.

46

2
1 In its appeal from Judge Chen’s ruling, Tri-State

2 argues that Judge Kuntz’s denial of its application failed

3 to “state the findings and conclusions that support its

4 action,” as required by Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of

5 Civil Procedure. Tri-State argues that because Judge

6 Kuntz’s ruling was deficient, Judge Chen could not have

7 relied on it. We review the district court’s denial of a

8 preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. New York

9 Progress and Protection PAC v. Walsh, 733 F.3d 483, 486 (2d

10 Cir. 2013). “Such an abuse occurs when the district court

11 bases its ruling on an incorrect legal standard or on a

12 clearly erroneous assessment of the facts.” Bronx Household

13 of Faith v. Bd. of Educ. of City of N.Y., 331 F.3d 342, 348

14 (2d Cir. 2003).

15

16 Judge Chen stated the findings and conclusions that

17 justified her ruling, which were that essentially the same

18 motion had already been denied by Judge Kuntz. A party that

19 is dissatisfied with the denial of a preliminary injunction

20 may appeal the denial under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), but is

21 not at liberty to resubmit the same application to a

22 different judge, hoping for a different result.

23

24 As for the merits of the district court’s order denying

25 Tri-State’s motions for a temporary restraining order and

26 preliminary injunction, we discern no abuse of discretion. 

27

28 Accordingly, and finding no merit in Tri-State’s other

29 arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the order of the district court.

30

31 FOR THE COURT:

32 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK

33

3