CF 135 Flat LLC v. Triadou SPV N.A.

• Decision Date: 03 May 2016
• Docket Number: 15-CV-5345 (AJN)
• Parties: CF 135 Flat LLC et al., Plaintiffs, v. Triadou SPV N.A. et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

CF 135 Flat LLC et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
Triadou SPV N.A. et al., Defendants.

15-CV-5345 (AJN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

May 3, 2016

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:

On April 1, 2016, Almaty and BTA Bank ("Movants") requested a preliminary injunction to prevent Triadou from enforcing its $10.5 million state court judgment against CF 135 Flat LLC, CF 135 West Member LLC, and the Chetrit Group LLC ("the Chetrit Entities"). Dkt. No. 106. At the scheduling conference held on April 27, 2016, the Court set an evidentiary hearing for May 19, 2016 and indicated that it would treat Movants' papers as requesting a temporary restraining order ("TRO") in the interim. For the reasons articulated below, Movants' request for a TRO is denied.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

"It is well established that in this Circuit the standard for an entry of a TRO is the same as for a preliminary injunction." Andino v. Fischer, 555 F. Supp. 2d 418, 419 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (collecting cases). "The showing of irreparable harm is '[p]erhaps the single most important prerequisite'" for a preliminary injunction. Kamerling v. Massanari, 295 F.3d 206, 214 (2d Cir. 2002) (quoting Bell & Howell: Mamiya Co. v. Masel Supply Co., 719 F.2d 42, 45 (2d Cir. 1983)). Under this prong, the movant "must show that the injury it will suffer is likely and

Page 2

imminent, not remote or speculative, and that such injury is not capable of being fully remedied by money damages." NAACP v. Town of E. Haven, 70 F.3d 219, 224 (2d Cir. 1995). To satisfy this requirement in the TRO context, a movant must demonstrate "that he would suffer irreparable harm if the TRO does not issue." Andino, 555 F. Supp. 2d at 419.

II. DISCUSSION

Movants argue that Triadou's enforcement of its state court judgment would frustrate their claim under New York Civil Procedure Law and Rules ("CPLR") § 5239 and permit Triadou to transfer assets out of the jurisdiction. Br. at 5, 9. They also argue that any attachment procedure against the Flatotel project would "lead[] to additional regulatory review," id. at 8, which could in turn cause "current and prospective buyers of Flatotel condominiums [to] terminate their purchases, resulting in the failure of the entire Flatotel real estate condominium project." Id. at 8-9. In light of the recent stipulation between Triadou and the Chetrit Entities, Movants have not made the requisite showing that they "would suffer irreparable harm if the TRO does not issue." Andino, 555 F. Supp. 2d at 419.

On April 28, 2016, Triadou and the Chetrit Entities executed a stipulation...