643 F. App'x 229
3rd Cir.2016Background
- Checker Cab (45 taxi companies and a dispatcher) sued Uber in Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging unfair competition, Lanham Act false advertising, and RICO violations for operating an illegal "gypsy cab" service in Philadelphia.
- Checker Cab moved for a preliminary injunction to stop Uber from operating in Philadelphia pending litigation, relying solely on Pennsylvania unfair competition law in that motion.
- The District Court denied the preliminary injunction for two independent reasons: Checker Cab failed to show (1) a likelihood of success on the merits and (2) irreparable harm. Checker Cab’s motion to reconsider was also denied.
- Checker Cab appealed only the denial of the preliminary injunction (not the denial of reconsideration). On appeal, the Third Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- The Third Circuit affirmed, holding Checker Cab failed to show irreparable harm because its asserted injury—loss of customers/earnings—is purely monetary and compensable by damages; additional harms raised later were forfeited for not being presented in the injunction motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Checker Cab demonstrated irreparable harm to justify a preliminary injunction | Loss of customers to Uber is an irreparable injury (hard to quantify; threatens businesses/homes) | The claimed harm is purely economic and can be remedied by money damages after trial | Held: No irreparable harm; purely monetary loss is not enough for an injunction |
| Whether arguments raised after the injunction motion may justify relief on appeal | Additional harms (e.g., business failure/homes lost) show irreparable injury | Late-raised arguments are forfeited and cannot be considered on appeal | Held: Those arguments are forfeited because they were not raised in the preliminary injunction motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell Soup Co. v. ConAgra, 977 F.2d 86 (3d Cir. 1992) (irreparable harm requires injury that cannot be remedied by money damages)
- ECRI v. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 809 F.2d 223 (3d Cir. 1987) (defining irreparable harm as non-monetary injury not atoned by compensation)
- Adams v. Freedom Forge Corp., 204 F.3d 475 (3d Cir. 2000) (plaintiff must show significant risk of harm not compensable after the fact)
- In re Arthur Treacher’s Franchisee Litig., 689 F.2d 1137 (3d Cir. 1982) (loss of money alone does not warrant an injunction)
- Liberty Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 562 F.3d 553 (3d Cir. 2009) (monetary injury generally cannot be irreparable)
- Ferring Pharm., Inc. v. Watson Pharm., Inc., 765 F.3d 205 (3d Cir. 2014) (standards of review and that failure to establish any injunction element is fatal)
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (four-factor preliminary injunction test)