Exhibitors Poster Exch. v. National Screen Serv. Corp., 30886 Summary Calendar.
| Decision Date | 11 June 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 30886 Summary Calendar.,30886 Summary Calendar. |
| Citation | 441 F.2d 560 |
| Parties | EXHIBITORS POSTER EXCHANGE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONAL SCREEN SERVICE CORPORATION et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
C. Ellis Henican, Jr., Henican, James & Cleveland, New Orleans, La., Glenn B. Hester, Sanders, Hester, Holley, Ashmore & Boozer, Augusta, Ga., Francis T. Anderson, Yeadon, Pa., for plaintiff-appellant.
Phillip A. Wittmann, William D. Treeby, Gibbons Burke, Chaffe, McCall, Phillips, Burke, Toler & Sarpy, New Orleans, La., Walter S. Beck, Louis Nizer, Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim & Ballon, New York City, Leon Jaworski, Stephen D. Susman, Fulbright, Crooker, Freeman, Bates & Jaworski, Houston, Tex., for defendants-appellees.
Before GEWIN, GOLDBERG and DYER, Circuit Judges.
Rehearing Denied and Rehearing En Banc Denied June 11, 1971.
Exhibitors Poster Exchange, Inc., appeals from the District Court's denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction. Exhibitors contends that the District Court abused its discretion in refusing to grant the mandatory relief for which it prayed. We affirm.
In its motion for entry of a preliminary injunction, Exhibitors averred: (1) that National Screen Service Corporation had acquired most of Exhibitors' previous customers since March 1, 1963; (2) that Exhibitors could regain a substantial number of its lost customers if it could resume full-scale operation of its business; (3) that unless full-scale operation resumed immediately, Exhibitors probably could not regain a sufficient number of customers to ensure successful pursuit of its business; (4) that National Screen was conspiring to prevent Exhibitors from resuming full-scale operation of its business. Exhibitors prayed for a mandatory preliminary injunction to enjoin National Screen "from continuing to refuse to sell Exhibitors supplies of standard motion picture advertising posters pending the trial" on the merits.
Refusing to grant such injunctive relief, the District Court concluded that Exhibitors had failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits or of irreparable injury. Furthermore, the court opined that Exhibitors, having acquiesced for the last five years in the acts of National Screen, was precluded from seeking a mandatory injunction. However, although it denied Exhibitors' motion for the preliminary injunction, the District Court considered the case of such nature that it should be set for trial as soon as possible.
The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo and thus prevent irreparable harm until the respective rights of the parties can be ascertained during a trial on the merits. Miami Beach Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Callander, 5 Cir. 1958, 256 F.2d 410, 415; accord, Quon v. Stans, N.D.Cal.1970, 309 F.Supp. 604, 607 & n. 3. The decision whether or not a preliminary injunction will issue lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Leu v. American Fidelity Life Insurance Co., 5 Cir. 1970, 430 F.2d 672, quoting Tatum v. Blackstock, 5...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Held v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, Civ. A. No. 73-H-1053.
...except in rare instances in which the facts and law are clearly in favor of the moving party". Exhibitors Poster Exchange v. National Screen Service Corp., 441 F.2d 560, 561 (5th Cir. 1971). In the present case, the Court is satisfied that the plaintiff has presented a prima facie case show......
-
Jones v. Latexo Independent School Dist.
...harm at the hands of defendants before a final determination on the merits is reached. Exhibitors Poster Exch. v. National Screen Serv. Corp., 441 F.2d 560 (5th Cir.1971) (per curiam). In order to be entitled to preliminary relief, plaintiffs must make the following 1. Plaintiffs have a sub......
-
Optimus Steel, LLC v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs
...harm until the respective rights of the parties can be ascertained during a trial on the merits." Exhibitors Poster Exch., Inc. v. Nat'l Screen Serv. Corp. , 441 F.2d 560, 561 (5th Cir. 1971). For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that a preliminary injunction is not warranted in......
-
Watson v. Federal Emergency Management Agency
...Justin Indus., Inc. v. Choctaw Sec., L.P., 920 F.2d 262, 268 n. 7 (5th Cir.1990); see also Exhibitors Poster Exch., Inc. v. Nat'l Screen Serv. Corp., 441 F.2d 560, 561 (5th Cir.1971). 9. The decision over whether to grant or deny a preliminary injunction is within the discretion of the dist......