Opinion ID: 38981
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: PCI’s Preliminary Injunction Request

Text: 36 H.R. REP. NO. 104-311, at 95-96 (1995). The Conference Report emphasized that the conference version of the bill was meant to preserve the exclusivity of federal remedies in the area of rail regulation that existed prior to the passage of the ICCTA. H.R. CONF. REP. NO. 104-422, at 167. 37 Hoskins, 343 F.3d at 778 (quoting Beneficial, 539 U.S. at 11). 18 We review the denial of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion.38 “Even though ‘the ultimate decision whether to grant or deny a preliminary injunction is reviewed only for abuse of discretion, a decision grounded in erroneous legal principles is reviewed de novo.’”39 To obtain a preliminary injunction, the applicant must show (1) a substantial likelihood that he will prevail on the merits, (2) a substantial threat that he will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted, (3) that his threatened injury outweighs the threatened harm to the party whom he seeks to enjoin, and (4) that granting the preliminary injunction will not disserve the public interest.40 “We have cautioned repeatedly that a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy which should not be granted unless the party seeking it has ‘clearly carried the burden of persuasion’ on all four requirements.”41 PCI fails to establish that there is a substantial likelihood that it will prevail on the merits. As the district court noted in its denial of the injunction, PCI never submitted the contract to the court for it to review. Without the contract, the district 38 Lake Charles Diesel, Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 328 F.3d 192, 195 (5th Cir. 2003). 39 Id. (quoting Women’s Med. Ctr. v. Bell, 248 F.3d 411, 419 (5th Cir. 2001)). 40 Id. at 195-96. 41 Id. at 196 (quoting Miss. Power & Light Co. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 760 F.2d 618, 621 (5th Cir. 1985)). 19 court could not possibly evaluate whether PCI was likely to prevail on the merits. In addition, PCI fails to show that it would suffer irreparable injury if an injunction were not granted. PCI’s doomand-gloom prediction that without an injunction it would lose the use of the track and be forced out of business is not borne out by the record and the briefs. The only consequence of contract cancellation appears to be a reversion to the terms and conditions provided by the federal tariff that governs such operations. Any damage resulting from a shorter period before demurrage is charged can be compensated for monetarily.42 We hold that there was no abuse of discretion by the district court in denying the injunction sought by PCI.