1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

___________________________________

)

PGP GROUP LLC, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 10-1481 (ESH)

) 

NATIONAL RAILROAD )

PASSENGER CORPORATION, )

)

Defendant. )

___________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff PGP Group LLC d/b/a Atlas Companies (“Atlas”) has sued defendant National 

Railroad Passenger Corporation (“Amtrak”), seeking to prevent defendant from awarding a 

contract for the installation of fencing. Before the Court are plaintiff’s motions for a temporary 

restraining order (“TRO”) and a preliminary injunction. Based on its review of the parties’ 

filings, applicable case law, and the arguments of counsel at a hearing held on September 8, 

2010, and for the reasons stated in open court, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions 

are DENIED. 

“A preliminary injunction is an ‘extraordinary and drastic remedy.’” Munaf v. Geren, 

553 U.S. 674 (2008) (quoting 11A C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and 

Procedure § 2948, p. 129 (2d ed. 1995)). On a motion for a temporary restraining order or a 

preliminary injunction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, the Court must balance four 

factors: 1) the movant’s showing of a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his 

claims, 2) a showing of irreparable harm to the movant, 3) a showing that an injunction would 

not result in substantial harm to the nonmovant, and 4) public interest. Davis v. Pension Benefit 
2

Guar. Corp., 571 F.3d 1288, 1291 (D.C. Cir. 2009). It is not enough for a plaintiff to show the 

possibility of irreparable injury; rather, it must “demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the 

absence of an injunction.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 375 (2008) 

(emphasis in original). 

As ruled in open court, plaintiff has failed to satisfy his burden since it has not shown a 

substantial likelihood of success on the merits or that it is likely to suffer irreparable injury. 

With respect to the merits, plaintiff has not shown that it is likely to prevail on its breach of 

contract claim. Second, as to irreparable injury, plaintiff argues that without an injunction, it 

stands to lose profits and overhead on work it may not be hired to do if Amtrak is permitted to 

solicit new proposals. However, plaintiff has shown merely that such damages are possible, not 

that they are likely. Moreover, Atlas has made no showing that such losses, if incurred, could 

not be calculated to some degree of reasonable certainty given the cap on plaintiff’s existing 

contract with Amtrak. Because “mere economic loss” does not “support a finding of irreparable 

injury,” Wisconsin Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 F.2d 669, 675 (D.C. Cir. 1985), Atlas has not 

demonstrated that it is likely to suffer irreparable injury if its motions for a TRO and a 

preliminary injunction are not granted. 1

 

 1 Given this conclusion, the Court need not address the other prongs of the preliminary 

injunction analysis. See, e.g., Appalachian Voices v. Chu, No. 08-380, 2010 WL 2902767, at *5 

(D.D.C. July 26, 2010) (where plaintiff fails to make irreparable injury showing, “the court need

not address the three remaining factors of the injunctive relief analysis; for even if the plaintiffs

were to make a strong showing on those factors, they still would not be entitled to interim 

injunctive relief”) (citing Winter, 129 S. Ct. at 375; CityFed Fin. Corp v. Office of Thrift 

Supervision, 58 F.3d 738, 747 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (affirming district court’s denial of motion for 

preliminary injunction based solely on moving party’s failure to make sufficient showing as to 

likelihood of irreparable injury)). 
3

Accordingly, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motions for a TRO and a preliminary 

injunction. 

SO ORDERED.

 /s/ 

ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE

United States District Judge

Date: September 8, 2010