X

Legal Memorandum: Preliminary Injunction in MH

Issue: Under the laws of the Marshall Islands, in determining whether or not to grant a preliminary injunction, what must a party show in order to demonstrate the ‘possibility of irreparable harm’?

Area of Law: Litigation & Procedure
Keywords: Preliminary injunction; Possibility of irreparable harm
Jurisdiction: Marshall Islands
Cited Cases: 903 F.2d 186; 98 F.3d 47; 805 F. Supp. 1157; 916 F. Supp. 1525; 51 F. Supp. 2d 508; 868 F.2d 1085
Cited Statutes: Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 360
Date: 03/01/2004

The moving party must establish a “significant threat of irreparable injury, irrespective of the magnitude of the injury.”  Big Country Foods, Inc. v. Bd. of Educ., 868 F.2d 1085, 1088 (9th Cir. 1989).  Likewise, as stated in Rapp v. Disciplinary Bd. of Hawaii Supreme Ct., 916 F. Supp. 1525 (D. Hawaii 1996), “the party seeking the injunction must demonstrate that it will be exposed to some significant risk of irreparable injury.”  916 F. Supp. at 1538.  The magnitude of Plaintiffs’ injury is shown by the great level of importance attached to title and rights in the subject lands.  Loko & Kabua v. Kramer, et al., RMI S.Ct. 96-03, slip op. at 2 (Jan. 29, 1997).    

The court in Elliott v. Kiesewetter, 98 F.3d 47 (3d Cir. 1996), in addressing the possibility of irreparable harm, held that it was not an abuse of discretion for a trial court to conclude, based on an asset manager’s prior course of conduct with respect to assets under his control, that he was likely to dissipate the remaining assets if he was not restrained from doing so.  98 F.3d at 54.  “A district court is clearly permitted to consider the likelihood that a defendant will be able to pay a judgment in determining whether to enter an asset freeze order.”  Id. (citing Hoxworth v. Blinder, Robinson & Co., 903 F.2d 186, 205 (3d Cir. 1990)).  The court further stated:

#brad_icons_1 li a{color:#999999;}