Opinion ID: 38981
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to Conduct a Hearing

Text: PCI makes the additional argument that the district court erred in failing to conduct a hearing before denying its motion for a preliminary injunction. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(1) specifies that “[n]o preliminary injunction shall be issued without notice to the adverse party.” “We have interpreted the notice requirement of Rule 65(a)(1) to mean that ‘where factual disputes are presented, the parties must be given a fair opportunity and a 42 See Morgan v. Fletcher, 518 F.2d 236, 240 (5th Cir. 1975) (citations and quotations omitted) (“Mere injuries, however substantial, in terms of money, time and energy necessarily expended in the absence of a stay, are not enough. The possibility that adequate compensatory or other corrective relief will be available at a later date, in the ordinary course of litigation, weights heavily against a claim of irreparable harm.”). 20 meaningful hearing to present their differing versions of those facts before a preliminary injunction may be granted.’”43 PCI relies on our decision in Commerce Park as support for its contention that, before a preliminary injunction motion can be denied, a hearing must be held. In Commerce Park, however, we merely assumed for the purpose of our analysis that Rule 65 required that a hearing be held prior to the denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction.44 The plaintiff has the burden of introducing sufficient evidence to justify the grant of a preliminary injunction.45 PCI’s motion for a preliminary injunction was predicated on the breach of a contract that was never put before the district court. PCI also failed to adduce any probative evidence that it would suffer irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction; its only factual offering was the conclusional statement that the demurrage charges would be too costly for it to remain in business. PCI’s failure to introduce the contract into evidence and its failure to establish the existence of a factual 43 Kaepa, Inc. v. Achilles Corp., 76 F.3d 624, 628 (5th Cir. 1996) (quoting Commerce Park at DFW Freeport v. Mardian Constr. Co., 729 F.2d 334, 342 (5th Cir. 1984)). 44 Commerce Park, 729 F.2d at 341. 45 Canal Auth. of the State of Florida v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 567, 578-79 (5th Cir. 1974). 21 dispute on the question whether it would suffer irreparable injury made a hearing unnecessary.46 The district court’s orders denying PCI’s motion for remand and denying PCI’s motion for a preliminary injunction —— including its refusal to conduct a hearing —— are, in all respects, AFFIRMED. 46 Kaepa, Inc., 76 F.3d at 628 (“If no factual dispute is involved . . . no oral hearing is required.”). 22