CORNING S & L ASS'N v. Federal Home Loan Bank Bd.
Decision Date | 13 April 1983 |
Docket Number | No. LR-C-83-69.,LR-C-83-69. |
Citation | 562 F. Supp. 279 |
Parties | CORNING SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION; and The Corning Bank, Plaintiffs, v. FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK BOARD; and Richard Pratt, James J. Jackson and Andrew Di Prete, as Members of Said Board and Pocahontas Federal Savings & Loan Association, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas |
John P. Gill, Gill, Skokos, Simpson, Buford & Owen, Little Rock, Ark., for plaintiffs.
Harvey Simon, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Jonathon K. Heffron, James T. Lantelme, Trial Attys., Washington, D.C., for Federal Home Loan Bank Bd.
James W. Lance, Little Rock, Ark., John F. Forster, Jr., Wallace, Hilburn, Clayton, Calhoon & Forster, North Little Rock, Ark., for Pocahontas Federal Sav. & Loan.
Pending before the Court is the motion of plaintiffs Corning Savings and Loan Association and The Corning Bank to stay the effectiveness of a resolution of defendant Federal Home Loan Bank Board ("Board") dated January 20, 1983. Pursuant to this resolution and a final approval document dated January 21, 1983, the defendant Pocahontas Federal Savings & Loan Association ("Pocahontas") opened a branch office in Corning, Arkansas, on January 22, 1983.
The original motion to stay was filed on January 27, 1983, and was accompanied by a short brief which offered only a superficial review of the issues, omitting any discussion of the criteria necessary for granting the stay. Pursuant to an agreement reached between counsel for plaintiffs and counsel for the Board, a briefing schedule was established whereby all defendants were afforded an opportunity to respond to plaintiffs' initial motion. The plaintiffs were then given another chance to more fully brief the issues, after which the defendants were given a final option of replying to the plaintiffs' supplemental brief. This briefing schedule has now been completed and the Court is in a position to rule upon the motion for stay.
These same tests have been repeatedly applied by the courts in deciding whether preliminary relief should be issued against the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, as well as other federal financial institution regulatory agencies. See, e.g., First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Camp, 432 F.2d 481, 483 (4th Cir.1970); Guaranty Savings and Loan Ass'n v. FHLBB, 330 F.Supp. 470, 472 (D.D.C.1971); Garlock, Inc. v. United Seal, Inc., 404 F.2d 256, 257 (6th Cir.1968); Carlson Companies, Inc., v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 374 F.Supp. 1080, 1097 (D.Minn.1974); Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. H. Rosenthal Co., 246 F.Supp. 724, 726 (D.Minn.1965).
Injunctions are "extra-ordinary legal remedies and are granted sparingly and under strict rules for the protection of all parties." Greater Iowa Corporation v. McLendon, 378 F.2d 783, 799 (8th Cir.1967). As a result, such a drastic remedy will not be granted unless a plaintiff clearly demonstrates that it is entitled to preliminary restraints in accordance with the criteria set forth by the Court of Appeals. Dakota Wholesale Liquor v. Minnesota, 584 F.2d 847, 849 (8th Cir.1978); Chicago Stadium Corp. v. Scallen, 530 F.2d 204, 206 (8th Cir.1976). Whether or not an injunction is granted is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Camp, supra.
In the instant case the Court is in effect not being asked to preserve the status quo but rather is being petitioned to issue a mandatory injunction which would return the parties to the status they enjoyed prior to the Board's issuance of its January 20, 1983, resolution and prior to the opening of the Pocahontas branch office on January 22, 1983.
An order granting the plaintiffs' motion for stay would have the practical effect of closing the Pocahontas branch office in Corning pending the final outcome of this lawsuit.
The Board's resolution approving the opening of the Corning branch constitutes the prior written approval of the branch. If this Court were to stay the effectiveness of the Board's resolution, then Pocahontas would cease to have the "prior written approval of the Board" and thus would have no authority to operate the Corning branch. The Court agrees with Pocahontas' assessment in its March 25, 1983, brief that the plaintiffs' distinction between an in rem and an in personam remedy amounts to a distinction without a difference in this case. Plaintiffs' requested in rem remedy has exactly the same effect as an in personam remedy, to wit, that Pocahontas Federal would be faced with operating a branch without the required prior written approval by the Board and thus would have to close its doors.
Later in their brief the plaintiffs seem to admit that their goal is in fact to obtain the closure of the Pocahontas branch:
The Court thus finds that what the plaintiffs are seeking and what the effect of granting the motion for stay would be is to shut down the Corning branch of Pocahontas Federal Savings and Loan pending the resolution of this lawsuit. Since the plaintiffs are not seeking to preserve the status quo, but rather are asking the Court to upset the status quo and to temporarily return the parties to the positions they were in three months ago, the Court finds that the plaintiffs should be held to an even higher burden than that set forth in Dataphase, supra. Courts "are more reluctant to grant a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Salt Pond Associates v. US ARMY CORPS OF ENG.
...are equivalent to the conventional standards for the issuance of a preliminary injunction. See Corning Savings & Loan Assoc. v. Fed. Home Loan Bank Bd., 562 F.Supp. 279, 280-81 (E.D.Ark.1983). 32 To succeed on the merits here, Plaintiff must demonstrate to this Court the strong probability ......
-
Texas v. United States
...Nursing Care Ctr. v. Leavitt, No. 3:07–CV–00024, 2007 WL 1601476, at *2 (W.D.Va. June 4, 2007) ; Corning Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Fed. Home Loan Bank Bd., 562 F.Supp. 279, 280 (E.D.Ark.1983) ; see also 5 U.S.C.A. § 705 (West 2014).IV. ANALYSISThe issue before the Court is whether the Department......
-
Callahan v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.
...should be entered is the same as that which applies to requests for preliminary injunctions." Corning Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Fed. Home Loan Bank Bd. , 562 F. Supp. 279, 280 (E.D. Ark. 1983)."To support a preliminary injunction, a district court need not find that the evidence positively guara......
-
Luke v. Reno, CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-0061 (MLC) (D. N.J. 3/26/2001)
...judicial review is the same as that applied to a request for a preliminary injunction. See, e.g., Corning Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Fed. Home Loan Bank Bd., 562 F. Supp. 279 (D. Ark. 1983). The following four factors govern a district court's decision whether to issue a preliminary injunction: (......