2011 IL App (1st) 111761
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Travelport sued American Airlines for anticipatory breach of contract and sought a preliminary injunction to prevent termination of Orbitz's ticketing authority under the Preferred Fares Agreement (PFA).
- The PFA required American to provide flight information to Travelport for distribution to Orbitz and other Travelport-affiliated agencies; Orbitz relied on ticketing authority to book American flights.
- American notified Orbitz of termination of its ticketing rights effective December 1, 2010, threatening the core Travelport revenue stream.
- Judge Agran denied the preliminary injunction, ruling Travelport lacked standing to sue on Orbitz and that irreparable harm was speculative, with damages deemed adequate.
- Travelport moved for reconsideration; Judge Preston, a successor judge, granted the injunction, reinstating Orbitz’s ticketing authority.
- American appealed under Rule 307(a)(1); the extension of Orbitz’s authority occurred after the injunction, creating questions about mootness and the scope of reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the successor judge properly reconsidered the injunction order | Travelport argues reconsideration by Judge Preston was proper and corrected legal errors. | American argues special scrutiny should apply because the ruling shifted; concerns about status quo preservation. | Yes; successor properly reconsidered and granted injunction. |
| Whether the appeal is moot after Orbitz's authority extension | Travelport contends mootness does not bar review because rights remain in dispute on the merits. | American contends mootness since injunction expired or extended waives controversy. | Not moot; remaining claims on the PFA remain at issue. |
| Whether Travelport had a protectable right and suffered irreparable harm | Travelport had a right under the PFA to access complete information and irreparable harm would result from loss of bookings and goodwill. | American contends standing was lacking and harm was speculative or compensable by damages. | Travelport presented a fair question on protectable right and irreparable injury. |
| Whether the balance of equities supports the injunction | Travelport showed significant potential irreparable harm absent the injunction. | American argued no irreparable injury and that equities should favor its ability to distribute via other means. | Balance supported entry of the injunction; Derby-like consideration acknowledged but not reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mohanty v. St. John Heart Clinic, 225 Ill.2d 52 (Ill. 2007) (standing governs ability to pursue breach claims in injunction context)
- Camden v. Bartels, 214 Ill.App.3d 69 (Ill. App. 1991) (irreparable injury presumed once protectable interest shown)
- Gannett Outdoor of Chicago v. Baise, 163 Ill.App.3d 717 (Ill. App. 1987) (irreparable harm may arise from loss of reputation and future sales)
- Falcon, Ltd. v. Corr's Natural Beverages, Inc., 165 Ill.App.3d 815 (Ill. App. 1987) (irreparable injury where loss of future business is incalculable)
- Gold v. Ziff Communications Co., 196 Ill.App.3d 425 (Ill. App. 1989) (injunction proper when loss of future customers cannot be precisely calculated)
- Wexler v. Wirtz Corp., 211 Ill.2d 18 (Ill. 2004) (standing and procedural posture as issues of law)
- Brandon v. Bonell, 368 Ill.App.3d 492 (Ill. App. 2006) (trial court may correct legal errors on reconsideration)