PRESTIGE TRANSPORTATION INC v. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-06-15No. No. 20-56326

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction because the companies failed to demonstrate a likelihood of irreparable harm, particularly by submitting no evidence of their financial condition and by delaying nearly four months before filing suit after their loan applications were denied.

Four transportation and logistics companies sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the Small Business Administration from enforcing certain policies when reviewing their applications for Emergency Economic Injury Disaster Loans. The companies claimed these policies would cause severe business harm. The district court denied their request for an emergency court order, and the appeals court upheld that decision. The appellate court found that the companies failed to provide sufficient evidence showing they would suffer irreparable injury without immediate court intervention, which is a required element for obtaining such relief.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether applicants for disaster loans demonstrated likelihood of irreparable harm
Whether delay in filing suit undermines claims of irreparable injury
Whether district court properly declined to address merits when threshold irreparable harm requirement was not met

Procedural posture

The plaintiffs appealed the district court's order denying their motion for a preliminary injunction in an administrative law dispute.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Prestige Transportation, Inc., Amerilogistics Group, Inc., Superior Overnight Services Inc., and STAM Properties LLC (“Plaintiffs”) appeal the district courts order denying their motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) from applying its alleged “Immigration Status” and “No Amendment” policies when administering the Emergency Economic Injury Disaster Loans (“EIDL”) program. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction due to their failure to demonstrate a likelihood of irreparable harm. See All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). Plaintiffs notably failed to submit any evidence of their current financial condition, despite alleging that they faced “business ruination” absent an injunction allowing them access to EIDL assistance—a failure that is particularly acute, where, as here, only economic harm is alleged. See Am. Passage Media Corp. v. Cass Commcns, Inc., 750 F.2d 1470, 1474 (9th Cir. 1985); Herb Reed Enters, LLC v. Fla. Ent. Mgmt., Inc., 736 F.3d 1239, 1251 (9th Cir. 2013). This failure is further belied by Plaintiffs’ unreasonable two-month delay before filing suit after the SBA denied their most recent EIDL application and nearly four-month delay after the SBA denied their first. Juxtaposed with the then impending closure of the temporary EIDL program, which has since been extended, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that such delay sufficiently “undercut[s] [Plaintiffs’] claim of irreparable harm.” Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 746 (9th Cir. 2015).

The district court also did not err by declining to address Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits after concluding they had failed to demonstrate likely irreparable harm. Because Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the threshold requirement that “irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction,” the district court need not have addressed the remaining factors. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008).

AFFIRMED.