Opinion ID: 868777
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Preliminary Injunction Balancing Test

Text: We also hold that the District Court did not err in dissolving the preliminary injunction. As the District Court held, NVI and Torchia cannot meet the four-factor test for a preliminary injunction. Am. Imaging Servs., Inc., 963 F.2d at 858. Under the test, the court considers: (1) the movant’s likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the movant will suffer irreparable injury without a preliminary injunction; (3) whether issuance of a preliminary injunction would cause substantial harm to others; and (4) whether the public interest would be served by issuance of a preliminary injunction. Id. These four considerations are “factors to be balanced and not prerequisites that must be satisfied.” Id. at 859. As the District Court held, NVI and Torchia do not have a high likelihood of success on the merits. The plain language of the settlement hearing simply does not support their case. During the settlement hearing, Torchia inquired, “Then [USI’s] going to put it on a website, right?” USI replied that it did not know, and Torchia responded, “I mean, I don’t care. It doesn’t matter.” Furthermore, the website posting was consistent with the magistrate judge’s characterization of the confidentiality clause. At the settlement hearing, the magistrate judge described the confidentiality clause in the following way: Let me just state, and you can correct me if I’m wrong, Mr. Graham [counsel for NVI and Torchia] or Mr. Torchia, but my understanding of the concern for the sealed nature and the confidentiality is that Mr. Torchia doesn’t —if he’s complying with the terms of the agreement doesn’t want it to appear to any credit authority or any other entity that he has a five-million-dollar judgment against him because as I understand it, it doesn’t become really a judgment for five million until he defaults. . . . [A]nd I think it’s understood that this needs to be reported to the [CCAA court]. No. 12-2262 Nat’l Viatical Inc., et al. v. Universal Page 8 Settlements Int’l, Inc. (emphasis added). Graham and Torchia did and said nothing to correct the magistrate