Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

COAST TO COAST ENTERTAINMENT, LLC v. COASTAL AMUSEMENTS

November 4, 2005.

COAST TO COAST ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
COASTAL AMUSEMENTS, INC., WU MAR HARNG ENTERPRISE, LTD., WU MAR, INC., PAOKAI ELECTRONIC ENTERPRISE CO., LTD., and NEW-TEC INDUSTRIAL COMPANY, Defendants.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: MARY COOPER, District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, Coast to Coast Entertainment, LLC ("C2C"), moves, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 65, to preliminarily enjoin: (1) the termination of the contractual relationship between C2C and Wu Mar Harng Enterprise, Ltd., Wu Mar, Inc., Paokai Electronic Enterprise Co., Ltd., and New-Tec Industrial Company (collectively referred to as "Wu Mar"), (2) Wu Mar from failing and refusing to provide C2C with Wu Mar amusement cranes, consistent with orders placed by C2C, (3) defendant Coastal Amusements, Inc. ("Coastal") and Wu Mar from setting or controlling the prices at which C2C may sell Wu Mar cranes, and (4) the defendants from controlling the customers to whom C2C may sell Wu Mar cranes. (C2C's Prop. Ord.)

C2C brought this action on August 9, 2005. (Dkt. entry no. 1). C2C alleges that (1) the defendants conspired to fix the minimum resale price levels and restrain trade in the Wu Mar crane market, (2) on June 17, 2005, Wu Mar informed C2C that it would no longer accept purchase orders for amusement cranes from C2C, and (3) Wu Mar's refusal to accept C2C's purchase orders stems from C2C's refusal to fix its resale prices at the minimum price level set by Coastal. (C2C's Br., at 1-2; Balaban Decl., at ¶ 50 & Ex. P.) Therefore, C2C claims that (1) Coastal has established a monopoly over the Wu Mar crane market and (2) the defendants have established a price-fixing scheme violating federal and state antitrust laws. (C2C's Br., at 2.) The complaint specifically asserts causes of actions for (1) violations of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act ("Sherman Act"), (2) violations of sections 56:9-3 and 56:9-4 of the New Jersey Antitrust Act ("NJAA"), (3) tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, (4) tortious interference with contract (against Coastal), and (5) breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing (against Wu Mar). (Compl.)

  The Court has considered the papers submitted by the parties and heard oral argument on October 5, 2005. The Court now issues its findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Rule 52. The Court, for the reasons stated herein, will deny C2C's motion.

  CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS — FACTUAL FINDINGS

  I. The Amusement Crane Industry

  Most of the facts are undisputed. This matter concerns amusement skill cranes ("cranes"). A crane is "a skill-based game which challenges a player to use a claw-type device by utilizing controls in order to retrieve a desired prize from an enclosed cabinet area. The prizes consist of plush toys and, more recently, candy." (C2C's Br., at 2; see also Balaban Decl., at ¶ 2; Mirando Decl., at ¶ 4; Wei Decl., at ¶ 5.) There were approximately 108,000 cranes on location in the United States in 2004, and it is estimated that an additional 16,000 new cranes will be sold in the United States in 2005. (Balaban Decl., at ¶ 11.)*fn1

  The three ways in which a company can participate in the "manufacturing side" of the crane industry in the United States are: (1) manufacture and sell its own cranes, (2) import cranes from a foreign manufacturer, or (3) import component parts from a foreign manufacturer and assemble the crane in the United States. (Id. at ¶ 15.) The manufacturing side of the crane industry in the United States is essentially made up of eight companies, including Coastal and C2C. (Id. at ¶ 7; Mirando Decl., at ¶ 46.) II. C2C's Involvement with Wu Mar Cranes

  C2C is a New Jersey company engaged in the sale of amusement and arcade games, and has been involved in the sale of cranes since approximately 1999. (Balaban Decl., at ¶¶ 2, 3.) When C2C started selling cranes, C2C purchased cranes manufactured by Wu Mar. (Id. at ¶ 21; Wei Decl., at ¶ 11.) Wu Mar and C2C did not have a written contract for the supply or distribution of Wu Mar cranes. (Wei Decl., at ¶ 12.)

  Wu Mar is located in Taiwan and "develops the concepts, artwork, mechanical parts, software and hardware for recreation machines [including cranes]." (Id. at ¶ 4.) Wu Mar manufactures more than twenty different model cranes. (Id.) Wu Mar is one of approximately twelve crane manufacturers in Taiwan and China. (Id. at ¶ 8; Mirando Decl., at ¶ 47.)

  C2C initially sold the cranes to mainly end users and did not request any modifications to the cranes. (Balaban Decl., at ¶ 21.) Eventually, C2C asked that Wu Mar modify its cranes that C2C wanted to purchase by requesting, inter alia, software changes, graphic changes, modifications to the physical characteristics of the crane, safety enhancements, and security enhancements. (Id.) C2C would pay approximately $1,000 per Wu Mar crane.*fn2 (Id. at ¶ 17.) C2C then sells the cranes at a "price ranging from $1,300 (to distributors) up to $1,795 (to end-users)." (C2C's Br., at 5.) C2C's business has grown during its six years of selling cranes, and as of August 9, 2005, C2C had sold 792 amusement cranes in 2005.*fn3 (Balaban Decl., at ¶ 24.)

  From its inception and until the fall of 2004, C2C marketed its cranes by advertising in trade journals, exhibiting at trade shows, and via the internet. (Balaban Decl., at ¶ 31.) C2C would attend seven trade shows per year. (Maurer Decl., at ¶ 18.) Additionally, C2C spent approximately $14,000 per month advertising in the trade publications. (Id.) C2C also sends out approximately 3,000 mailers per month promoting its cranes. (Id.) Until the fall of 2004, the majority of C2C's crane sales were direct sales to end-users as opposed to through distributors. C2C's primary business is its crane sales.*fn4 (Id.)

  III. Coastal's Involvement with Wu Mar Cranes

  Coastal is a New Jersey corporation that "has been in the business of designing, manufacturing, and importing coin operated amusement games and the distribution of these games to wholesale distributors and end users in the United States and abroad" since its formation in 1986. (Mirando Decl., at ¶ 1.) Coastal's shareholders are executive vice president Salvatore V. Mirando ("Mirando") and president Leonard Dean ("Dean"). (Id. at ¶¶ 1-2.)

  Coastal began importing Wu Mar chocolate candy cranes for distribution in the United States in or around October 2000.*fn5 (Id. at ¶¶ 6-9, Dean Decl., at ¶¶ 3-4.) In April 2002, Coastal purchased two sample Toy Soldier Jumbo cranes from Wu Mar, and had one of the samples shipped to NAMCO Cybertainment ("NAMCO") — a major customer of Coastal — for NAMCO's review. (Mirando Decl., at ¶¶ 10-12.) After Wu Mar completed NAMCO's request for modifications to the cranes, NAMCO ordered 100 cranes from Coastal; Coastal began to sell these Wu Mar cranes as "Toy Soldier Jumbo" cranes to its wholesale distributors and to other end users. (Id. at ¶¶ 13-14.)

  Coastal, after committing to selling cranes, determined that the best way to develop sales of Wu Mar cranes was to sell the cranes primarily through a network of wholesale distributors. (Id. at ¶ 15.) Coastal believed that although its margin per Wu Mar crane sale would be smaller, this marketing strategy would be beneficial because of the increased total unit sales. (Id.) As part of this strategy, Coastal promoted Wu Mar cranes in advertising and at trade shows. (Id. at ¶ 16.) Additionally, Coastal maintained a staff of five service technicians to diagnose and solve problems with the cranes. (Id.) Within three years, Coastal's sales of Wu Mar cranes rose from less than 100 units to over 1,500 units per fiscal year. (Id. at ¶ 22.) As of September 16, 2005, Coastal had sold 1,124 cranes in 2005. (Id. at ¶¶ 63-64.)

  Coastal and Wu Mar agreed to a three-year exclusive distributorship agreement for three brands of Wu Mar cranes in January 2004. (Id. at ¶ 20; Wei Decl., at ¶ 20.) Coastal also agreed to a minimum annual purchase requirement, but the agreement did not set a resale price for any of the cranes. (Wei Decl., at ¶¶ 20-21.) At Wu Mar's request, the agreement permitted Wu Mar to continue to sell one brand of crane to C2C. (Id. at ¶ 21; Mirando Decl., at ¶ 20.) Coastal agreed to the C2C exception to exclusivity because Coastal understood that Wu Mar would not permit C2C to sell to distributors. (Mirando Decl., at ¶¶ 20-21.)

  IV. Coastal and C2C's Competition in the Amusement Crane Market

  A. C2C's Sale of Cranes to Distributors

  C2C hired a salesperson to begin marketing C2C's cranes for sale to distributors in the fall of 2004. (Balaban Decl., at ¶ 33; Wei Decl., at ¶ 27.) After C2C began marketing Wu Mar cranes for sale to distributors, Coastal "expressed concern to Wu Mar that [C2C's] new strategy would undermine its distribution network and that [C2C] was capitalizing on Coastal's development of a demand for Wu Mar brand cranes." (Coastal's Br., at 7; Wei Decl., at ¶ 29.) Coastal "asked that Wu Mar request that [C2C] not sell at the unreasonably low prices that were disrupting the distributor network, that it not sell to Coastal's distributors, and that it remove its prices from its written advertising." (Mirando Decl., at ¶ 30.)

  B. Correspondence Between the Parties Regarding C2C's Sale of Cranes to Distributors

  In response to Coastal's concerns, Wu Mar's president, Ming-Shan Wei ("Wei"), sent an e-mail on September 22, 2004, to C2C, stating, in pertinent part:
I heard that you are hiring a salesman and he is doing quite a good job for you.
However is it true that your salesman is offering your crane as "the same to Coastal's cranes"? We think it is not a good strategy to sell your cranes because your are directly competing against our distributor which will also hurt our sales and relationship with Coastal. Please try to focus to real features of the cranes. You don't need to mention that your crane is from the same manufacturer of Coastal's crane. Do you?
Please try to explain your new sales strategy. What's your distribution price now? We really appreciate your support to us but please understand that any of you, Coast to Coast and Coastal are important and good customers for us.
(Balaban Decl., at ¶ 34 & Ex. E; Wei Decl., at ¶ 29.) After receiving a response to this e-mail from C2C, Wei replied on September 23, 2004, as follows:
First of all I want to thank you for your support over all these years. I would never ask you this favour but being the owner of a company, we must take care of all our customers and make everybody happy (I try) but meanwhile, make decisions that would be the most profitable for us.
I wish you not to "touch" any of the distributors of Coastal concerning to cranes (any of your types). Please have your salesman to understand this. You may offer them products that Coastal doesn't offer, but never give them any quotation or try to get cranes orders from them. Of course there are many distributors very loyal to Coastal, but if you offer them a price lower than Coastal can offer, they can have doubt on Coastal and may cause conflicts betwee[n] them. It would be good if you can remove your distribution price from the ad.*fn6
If you can not promise the above, I will be forced to make a decision to have one sole distributor in the US, which would be the worst thing that I would ever do. We really appreciate you and John like friends. But I must maintain a company considering the best for it and if I must make a decision, I will have to say sorry.
Like you say, you have started to offer our crane much before than Coastal. But we also have to tell you that Coastal is buying much more cranes than you. Even under this condition, we have always tried to protect your company and cooperate with you in all the modifications or development or requests; even under the pressure from Coastal's complain[t]s (we don't tell you much about this, but we did many many times trying to convince and promise that Coast to Coast will not hurt their sales). My biggest wish at this moment is to help you with the other new projects and trying to open up more and more new customers of the field. US market is so big and the biggest favour from you would be to "occupy" other intact market to buy Wu Mar's new games. . . .
(Balaban Decl., at ¶ 35 & Ex. F.)

  Wei and Rita Lai (another Wu Mar employee) met with C2C's principals at a trade show in Las Vegas on October 6, 2004. (Wei Decl., at ¶ 32; Balaban Decl., at ¶ 37.) During the meeting, Wu Mar suggested that C2C not sell directly to Coastal's customers. (Wei Decl., at ¶ 32; Balaban Decl., at ¶ 37.) C2C told Wei that Wu Mar could not dictate to whom and at which price, C2C could sell the cranes. (Balaban Decl., at ¶ 37.) Despite opposing Wu Mar's request, C2C acquiesced and provided Wu Mar with a designated list of customers, which included some distributors. (Id.) Wu Mar cross-checked the list with Coastal in an attempt to avoid future disagreements and to ensure that C2C was not targeting Coastal's distributors. (Mirando Decl., at ¶ 32; Wei Decl., at ¶ 33.) After cross-checking the list with Coastal, Wu Mar learned that two distributors on the list were in the Coastal distribution network and two other distributors directly competed against one of Coastal's largest distributors. (Wei Decl., at ¶ 34.)

  Wu Mar sent C2C another e-mail on December 7, 2004, which stated, in pertinent part:
As I mentioned before, when I gave [Coastal] the list of distributors received at IAAPA from you, they told me that Mountain Coin and Discount Arcade are their customers so they told me that you can not sell cranes to them. They also told us that you can not either offer to Bay Coin and East Coast Amusements because they are known distributors (re-sellers) that compete directly with their distributor. We must agree with Coastal on this because if you are offering your cranes to them, you are competing against Wu Mar's cranes which is not good for us.
We repeat again that Coastal accept that Coast to Coast sells only to retail operators but never to re-sellers. Plea[s]e also hold your retail price to a competitive level to not disturb the market pricing and create confusion.
Please try to understand the situation. Mr. Wei and I understand that we are limiting your business in cranes but if you agree to cooperate with us and follow the rules, we will always help you for new products and releases in the future.
(Balaban Decl., at ¶ 38 & Ex. G; Wei Decl., at ¶ 35.) Two days later, Wu Mar sent a notice to its customers worldwide that it was raising its sale price five to ten percent to compensate for fluctuations in currency exchange rates and increased oil and other raw material costs. (Wei Decl., at ¶ 36; Balaban Decl., at ¶ 39 & Ex. H.) In the notice, Wu Mar suggested that its customers adjust their resale price accordingly. (Balaban Decl., at ¶ 39 & Ex. H.)
  C2C stated that Wu Mar's request that it keep a "competitive" price level was "unacceptable" via e-mail dated December 10, 2004. (Wei Decl., at ¶ 37; C2C's Br., at 14.) C2C also refused to stop selling cranes to the four distributors mentioned in the December 7, 2004 e-mail from Wu Mar to C2C. (Wei Decl., at ¶ 37; Balaban Decl., at ¶ 40 & Ex. I.) Wu Mar sent another e-mail to C2C on January 4, 2005, which included a forwarded e-mail from Coastal complaining about C2C offering a Wu Mar crane to one of Coastal's customers for $1250:
Dear Gary,
* * *
Please see the following message from [Coastal.] We are very disappointed that this kind of things is happening again. We would like to know if this is true. Can you please give us an explanation?
* * *
Rita;
I just received a call from one of our largest customers reporting that Coast to Coast offered the crane to him at $1250.00. When will this end?
Sal
(Balaban Decl., at ¶ 41 & Ex. J.)
  Also on January 4, 2005, Wu Mar responded to C2C's December 10, 2004 e-mail:
We think that everything is clear as we explained to you already.
1. We have signed an agreement with Coastal about 2 years ago.
2. The agreement is almost on "exclusive distribution" basis. I say "almost" because when Coastal asked the exclusive distribution of cranes, we said NO.
3. They had to accept the exception of Coast to Coast because of the long time relationship of ours.
4. They had to accept this exception, otherwise, we won't sign the agreement with them. The exception says we can ship cranes series WMH1-88.
5. We thought we did not need to tell you nothing by then because we were keeping selling you cranes. But I made the mistake not have told you that you can not sell through distribution because this was one of the points in the agreement. And of course you can not offer to Coastal's customers.
6. When you told me last year that in order to expand your business, you were planing to sell through distribution; I didn't remember at that time that it is prohibited by the agreement with Coastal. My fault again . . .
7. The agreement says that Coastal has the exclusive right of Wu Mar cranes except series #188. Coast to Coast can sell direct (only series #188) as it was up to that moment.
8. Everything was fine before because you or your people did not go to Coastal's customers and offer them cranes. But now because you have "started the war", they came to reclaim their right. Specially because you went DIRECTLY to their customers.
9. We had to share the list of distribution customers to Coastal because we have an agreement signed. We can not "hide" the truth or lie. If Coastal agrees to the list of distributors we are fine. But we must ask their permission.
10. As you can see, Coastal had no rejection on all the companies on the list, but only the ones that are really their customers. They are still buying from Coastal.
We must end this conflict because neither of we 3 companies will be comfortable doing business this way. You must NOT contact Coastal's customers. If you already know who they are and moreover you know that they are loyal to Coastal why are you creating conflict by offering them cranes??? What they will only do is complain to Coastal and the next step to complain to Wu Mar and finally we must explain and this will never end . . . We are really tired.
So please just promise
Not to offer your cranes to the distributors that Coastal declares their customers.
You will only sell direct, except those distributors that Coastal has no comments.
We really wish to keep our business relationship for long long time. We can work together to develop more games in the future. We know we are limiting your sells in cranes; but we have an agreement to comply with. We could have told you 2 years ago that we can not offer you no more cranes because we were going to sign an agreement with someone else. We did not do that. Contrary, just because of our relationship. We wrote many long e-mails in that If you can't make the promises or we still get news that your people approach to Coastal's customers and offer cranes, we must choose to stay with just one customer of cranes in the US; which is the end that we won't be happy to see never.
(Balaban Decl., at ¶ 42 & Ex. K; Wei Decl., at ¶ 38.)
  Wu Mar sent C2C another e-mail, which included a forwarded message from Coastal on January 13, 2005, stating:
[From Coastal to Wu Mar]
Rita,
First of all, I am as tired of reporting this annoyance, as you are of hearing about it. However, we must protect our reputation, and I will continue to demand that you hold Coast to Coast to the original agreement, or stop selling to them.
I am faxing you a copy of an ad that appeared in the December issue of Replay magazine advertising Coast to Coast cranes for sale by Bay Coin, one of the companies on the list that we insisted that Coast to Coast not sell.
Bay Coin is in the same area as our largest customer, Betson Industries, and we are getting pressure from Betson to stop Bay Coin from selling "the same cranes as Coastal". This situation hurts our credibility, and must be stopped, once and for all.
Sal
[From Wu Mar to C2C]
We did not insist on "Coast to Coast can not sell through distribution" at all. But we must respect our agreement with Coastal, so we showed them the list of distributors that you intend to sell. If Coastal agree with the list, we will definitely agree. But if they do not agree on the list, we must stop you to sell to them. Coastal could have told us directly that Coast to Coast must not sell to any distributor in America, but they just pointed out which ones not.
So now, we must insist that at least you do not sell to Mountain Coin, Discount Arcade and Bay Coin because the first two distributors are customers of Coastal, too and Bay Coin is the competitor of their biggest customer. Consequently, Coast to Coast indirectly is becoming competitor of Coastal and eventually Wu Mar Harng is becoming competitor of Coastal, which does not make sense and doesn't help to us.
Mr. Wei and I seriously ask you to stop this situation because of the reasons that we told you before. You must stop or we will stop to you. Don't forget that at IAAPA you came to us in the last day and told us that you will not sell cranes through distribution inside of the US. We kindly ask you to re-consider this situation.
Best regards,
Rita Lai
(Balaban Decl., at ¶ 43 & Ex. L.)

  C. Wu Mar Informs C2C that Wu Mar Will Not Sell Cranes to C2C-Wu Mar and Coastal Enter into Exclusive Distributorship Agreement

  Wu Mar informed C2C that it would no longer manufacture cranes for C2C in an e-mail dated March 29, 2005. (Id. at ¶ 45 & Ex. M.). In the e-mail, Wu Mar stated, in pertinent part:
I have to inform you that we have decided to make a very important decision regarding the distribution in the USA. We know that you will be hurt, angry, mad . . . We had to choose just one distributor for our cranes in the United States at this point. We think this is better for our company. We really appreciate the friendship between both companies during all this time and we hope to keep being friend. The reality sometimes is cruel, business is business, everybody wants to survive in this market with so much competition.
* * *
The cranes sole distribution agreement that we will sign with Coastal will start to be valid since April 1st 2005.
(Id.) Wu Mar and Coastal entered into an exclusive distributorship agreement on April 1, 2005. (Mirando Decl., at ¶ 37; Wei Decl., at ¶ 45.) This agreement did not (1) require Coastal to set any specific resale price, or (2) include a suggested resale price. (Wei Decl., at ¶ 46 & Ex. E.) The agreement allowed C2C two days to place additional crane orders for Wu Mar cranes. (Id.; Mirando Decl., at ¶ 38.) C2C ordered seven additional containers of cranes from Wu Mar.*fn7 (C2C's Br., at 16.)

  D. C2C's Opposition to Wu Mar's Refusal to Sell

  C2C sent Coastal a letter, dated May 5, 2005, which advised Coastal that C2C considered Coastal's conduct "to be in direct violation of United States Anti-Trust Laws, New Jersey State Anti-Trust Laws, and New Jersey Common law." (Balaban Decl., at ¶ 47 & Ex. N.) From May to June 2005, the principals of Coastal and C2C met in an attempt to resolve their issues and discuss the possibility of Coastal acquiring C2C. (Id. at ¶ 48; Mirando Decl., at ¶ 40.) The parties agreed that, pending further negotiations, C2C could purchase Wu Mar cranes through Coastal at a $100 mark-up per crane. (Id.) In furtherance of the interim arrangement, C2C placed orders for additional cranes. However, on June 17, 2005, Coastal sent an e-mail to C2C indicating that Coastal would not accept any purchase orders for cranes from C2C. (Balaban Decl., at ¶ 50 & Ex. P; Mirando Decl., at ¶ 41.) E. C2C's Attempts to Find a Substitute Crane Manufacturer

  Because C2C could no longer purchase cranes from Wu Mar, C2C initially investigated manufacturing its own cranes in the United States, but determined that it would cost approximately $250 to $350 more per crane.*fn8 (Balaban Decl., at ¶ 53.) Also, C2C believed that no United States manufacturers would be willing to manufacture C2C's cranes. (Id. at ¶ 54.) As such, C2C purchased cranes from another Asian company, Feiloli Electronic Co., Ltd. ("Feiloli"), for approximately $870 per crane (hereinafter referred to as the "alternate crane"). (Id.) Some of C2C's customers have refused to purchase the alternative cranes. (Maurer Decl., at ¶ 7.) C2C has sold and marketed the alternative cranes for approximately four months, and sales of the alternative cranes have made up only 30% of the monthly average number of cranes shipped by C2C over the preceding four months. (Id. at ¶ 13.) C2C "is virtually out of Wu Mar Cranes[,]" and it has no confirmed orders for alternative cranes in the "pipeline". (Id. at ¶¶ 4, 15.)

  CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

  C2C moves to enjoin (1) the termination of the contractual relationship between C2C and Wu Mar, (2) Wu Mar from failing and refusing to provide C2C with Wu Mar cranes, consistent with orders placed by C2C, (3) Coastal and Wu Mar from setting or controlling the prices at which C2C may sell Wu Mar cranes, and (4) the defendants from controlling the customers to whom C2C may sell Wu Mar cranes. (C2C's Prop. Ord.) The Court finds that C2C has not satisfied the elements of a preliminary injunction such that its requested relief is warranted.*fn9 The findings and conclusions set forth in this opinion are preliminary only, based upon the state of the record at this stage in the litigation. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(a). The parties have preserved all rights to present their disputes to a fact-finder for eventual adjudication on the merits.

  Injunctive relief is an "extraordinary remedy, which should be granted only in limited circumstances." Frank's GMC Truck Ctr., Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 847 F.2d 100, 102 (3d Cir. 1988) (internal citation omitted). The Court must consider whether: (1) the party seeking a preliminary injunction has shown a reasonable probability of success on the merits; (2) the party will be irreparably injured by the denial of the relief; (3) granting preliminary relief will result in even greater harm to the nonmoving party; and (4) granting the preliminary relief will be in the public interest. Allegheny Energy v. DQE, Inc., 171 F.3d 153, 158 (3d Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). "The injunction should issue only if the plaintiff produces evidence sufficient to convince the district court that all four factors favor preliminary relief." AT&T Co. v. Winback & Conserve Program, 42 F.3d 1421, 1427 (3d Cir. 1994) (citations omitted).

  C2C requests that the Court, inter alia, order Wu Mar to continue selling its cranes to C2C, which it ceased doing pursuant to its exclusive distributorship agreement with Coastal. As such, C2C is seeking a mandatory injunction. An injunction is mandatory if the injunction will either (1) "alter the status quo by commanding some positive act" or (2) provide the moving party with "substantially all the relief sought and that relief cannot be undone even if the defendant prevails at a trial on the merits." Tom Doherty Assoc. v. Saban Entm't, 60 F.3d 27, 33-34 (2d Cir. 1995).*fn10 Where a plaintiff seeks a mandatory injunction rather than a prohibitory injunction, the burden of showing an entitlement to the preliminary injunction is greater, as mandatory injunctions are generally disfavored. Edge v. Pierce, 540 F.Supp. 1300, 1303 (D.N.J. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.