William Inglis & Sons
Baking
526 F.2d 86 (9th Cir. 1976)
Yeazell, pp. 364-366
Facts: Some baking companies sued some of their competitors
in an antitrust action. One plaintiff
moved for a preliminary injunction. The
district court denied the injunction.
The plaintiff appealed.
Issue: Did the district court apply the correct test in
denying a preliminary injunction?
Rule: A grant or denial of a preliminary injunction can
only be reversed on appeal if the trial court either was wrong as a matter of
law or abused its discretion.
Analysis: The district court denied a preliminary injunction
because it found that it was uncertain that the plaintiffs would win at
trial. However, there is an alternative
test which allows a preliminary injunction even when the chance that the
plaintiff will win is uncertain. Under
that test, there need only be a “fair chance of success on the merits” so long
as the damage that the plaintiff may suffer is “sufficiently serious”. The Court of Appeals finds that the district
court needs to consider this test as well as the one it actually applied.
Conclusion: The court reverses and remands in order for the trial
court to consider the alternative test.
Notes and Problems
1.
Maybe
the preliminary injunction was really sought in order to try to get the defendants
to settle. The process of trying to get
the preliminary injunction took so long that it seems ridiculous to have sought
“preliminary” relief. The lawyer must
have said that the baker would go out of business if the competitors weren’t
forced to change their behavior right away.
2.
The
first test is an “and” test, while the second test is a broader “or” test. More plaintiffs will get preliminary
injunctions under the second test than the first.
3.