Open Top Sightseeing USA v. Mr. Sightseeing, Llc.
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82791
| D.D.C. | 2014Background
- Plaintiffs (Open Top Sightseeing USA et al.) sued defendants (Mr. Sightseeing, LLC et al.) alleging trade dress infringement and breach of severance agreements and sought a preliminary injunction after defendants began operating an allegedly infringing tour-bus business.
- Plaintiffs filed the complaint and PI motion 36 days after the defendants began the contested operations and requested a hearing date (July 1, 2014) well beyond the 21-day period in Local Civ. R. 65.1(d).
- Plaintiffs then sought a continuance and an indefinite (or at least two-week) delay of the July 1 hearing because current counsel asserted a conflict and planned to withdraw; plaintiffs had not secured replacement counsel.
- Defendants opposed the continuance, arguing delay prolongs the motion’s chilling effect on their business during peak season and that plaintiffs’ own scheduling was inconsistent with claims of urgent irreparable harm.
- The court found plaintiffs’ delay and request to prolong consideration undermined any claim of urgency and irreparable harm and therefore denied the preliminary injunction; the continuance request was denied as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a preliminary injunction should issue to stop defendants’ tour-bus operations pending trial | Plaintiffs argued they will suffer irreparable harm from defendants’ ongoing operations and sought a PI; requested a continuance to obtain new counsel | Defendants argued the PI motion already chills their business; delay would exacerbate harm and plaintiffs’ delay undermines urgency | Denied — plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm; requested continuance moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Aamer v. Obama, 742 F.3d 1023 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (reiterating the four-factor preliminary injunction standard)
- Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (same preliminary-injunction framework)
- Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968 (1997) (preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy requiring a clear showing)
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (injunctive relief requires a clear showing of likely irreparable harm)
- Wash. Metro. Area Transit Comm’n v. Holiday Tours, Inc., 559 F.2d 841 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (sliding-scale approach to preliminary injunctions)
- Davis v. Pension Ben. Guar. Corp., 571 F.3d 1288 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (clarifying interplay of sliding scale and injury showing)
- In re Navy Chaplaincy, 738 F.3d 425 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (requiring proof of all injunction factors)
- Fund for Animals v. Frizzell, 530 F.2d 982 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (delay in seeking injunction can be dispositive)