Global Oil Tools, Inc. v. Expeditors International of Washington, Inc., 2:16-cv-16372

Global Oil Tools packed $2.4M of tools and related intellectual property into two containers and contracted with Expeditors and Andrea Merzario to ship them from New Orleans to Constanta, Romania.
The containers were scheduled to sail in March 2016; plaintiff twice instructed delays, but Hapag-Lloyd failed to notify the stevedore, and the containers mistakenly sailed on March 28, 2016.
After discovery of the mistake, plaintiff consented to discharge at Constanta and later instructed Andrea Merzario (through agent RGS) to move the containers to bonded storage, where they remain.
Plaintiff sued several defendants and moved for a preliminary injunction seeking (1) preservation/protection of the containers/cargo and IP and (2) an order preventing defendants from interfering with return shipment to New Orleans.
The court found no evidence of ongoing physical risk to the cargo or risk of IP misappropriation, no evidence defendants are holding the containers hostage or are likely to interfere with return shipment, and that the only practical obstacles are cost allocation and Romanian customs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Preservation/protection of cargo and IP	Injunction needed to prevent loss and misappropriation of inventory and IP worth ~$2.4M	No present risk: containers in bonded storage; only transit salinization; no evidence of IP risk	Denied — plaintiff failed to show likely irreparable harm requiring preservation injunction
Interference with return shipment	Defendants "hijacked" property and demand ransom; injunction needed to secure return	Containers moved with plaintiff's acquiescence; defendants did not act without plaintiff's consent; no evidence of interference	Denied — no evidence defendants are or will interfere with return shipment
Forcing defendants to pay return shipping costs	Defendants should be compelled to pay upfront for return transport	Cost-sharing is a monetary dispute; plaintiff can pay and seek damages later	Denied — compulsion to pay is monetary relief not suitable for injunctive relief; adequate legal remedies exist
Urgency / delay in seeking relief	Immediate injunction required to avoid business ruin	Plaintiff delayed >1.5 years after shipment and >1 year after suit; delay undermines claim of irreparable harm	Denied — plaintiff's long delay rebuts need for extraordinary relief

Guy Carpenter & Co., Inc. v. Provenzale, 334 F.3d 459 (5th Cir.) (preliminary-injunction four-factor framework; injunction is extraordinary relief)
Miss. Power & Light Co. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 760 F.2d 618 (5th Cir.) (preliminary injunctions are the exception, not the rule)
Janvey v. Alguire, 647 F.3d 585 (5th Cir.) (irreparable harm requires more than speculation; no injunction without adequate showing)
Dennis Melancon, Inc. v. City of New Orleans, 703 F.3d 262 (5th Cir.) (monetary injuries weigh against finding irreparable harm)
Justin Indus., Inc. v. Choctaw Sec., L.P., 920 F.2d 262 (5th Cir.) (availability of self-help or later legal remedies undercuts claim of irreparable harm)
Bano v. Union Carbide Corp., 361 F.3d 696 (2d Cir.) (courts may refuse injunctive relief that would interfere with foreign sovereignty)