Court Opinion

ID: 2966204
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:50:45.217937+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:27.456530
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
                 United States Court of Appeals
                     For the First Circuit

No. 00-1247

                    SOUTHEX EXHIBITIONS, INC.,

                      Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                v.

             RHODE ISLAND BUILDERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,

                       Defendant, Appellee.

           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                 FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

           [Hon. Ernest C. Torres, U.S. District Judge]

                              Before

                    Boudin, Stahl and Lynch,
                        Circuit Judges.
                                
                                
                                
                                
     Leland P. Schermer, Gregg D. Orsag and Sweeney Metz Fox
McGrann & Schermer, L.L.C. on brief for appellant.
     James M. Sloan, III and Gardner, Sawyer, Gates & Sloan on
brief for appellee.

March 2, 2000

                                
                                

  
            Per Curiam.    Southex Exhibitions, Inc. ("Southex")
  appeals from the denial of a preliminary injunction, and it has
  requested an expedited decision.  Neither party has requested
  oral argument, and we have concluded that it is not necessary. 
  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 34(b).  We affirm.
            Although it bore the burden to do so, Southex makes
  no developed argument in its brief on irreparable harm. 
  Rather, it addresses the issue in a single sentence and brief
  footnote without developed argumentation or citation to the
  record.  We have repeatedly stated that it is not enough merely
  to mention a possible argument in the most skeletal way,
  leaving the court to do counsel's work.  See, e.g., United
  States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990).  The needed
  showing of irreparable harm has not been made.
            As to likelihood of success, there may well be
  legitimate arguments on both sides, but nothing we have seen
  decisively weights the case in Southex's favor.  That is enough
  to justify denial of a preliminary injunction, at least in the
  absence of overwhelming equities in support of an injunction. 
  The district court referred briefly to harm on both sides
  without discussing whether it would be irreparable; and as we
  have already noted, Southex has made little effort to persuade
  us on this issue.
            Affirmed.