JAMES F. REVETTE, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES,
v.
THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS, DEFENDANT, LOCAL 798, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction, even if the merits present a close question.
Members of Local 798 sued the Union, alleging discriminatory operation of its job referral system in violation of a collective bargaining agreement. T…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Exhaustion Of Grievance Procedures cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Local 798, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, appeals the granting of a preliminary injunction. Twelve of Local 798’s members filed a class action against the Union claiming it operates its job referral system in a discriminatory fashion in violation of a collective bargaining agreement between the Union and various contractors. Plaintiffs challenged the practice of allowing contractors to request substantial number of workers by name. Plaintiffs re quested, and the district court granted, a preliminary injunction, enjoining the defendants, during the course of litigation, from referring members of the local except in strict accordance with the order. Apparently no move has been made in the trial court to obtain a final resolution of the issues involved. We need not decide the ultimate issue of whether the plaintiffs will prevail. Based on the “abuse of discretion” standard of review, we affirm the grant of a preliminary injunction in this case.
The grant or denial of a preliminary injunction is a decision within the sound discretion of the district court. United States v. Lambert, 695 F. 2d 536, 539 (11th Cir.1983). Appellate review of such a decision is very narrow. The district court’s decision will not be reversed unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. Harris Corp. v. National Iranian Radio & Television, 691 F. 2d 1344, 1354 (11th Cir.1982). This Court will not “review the intrinsic merits of the case.” Lambert, 695 F. 2d at 539. As we have explained:
This limited review is necessitated because the grant or denial of a preliminary injunction is almost always based on an abbreviated set of facts, requiring a delicate balancing of the probabilities of ultimate success at final hearing with the consequences of immediate irreparable injury which could possibly flow from the denial of preliminary relief. Weighing these considerations is the responsibility of the district court____
Gray Line Motor Tours v. City of New Orleans, 498 F. 2d 293, 296 (5th Cir.1974) (quoting United States Steel Corp. v. Fraternal Association of Steel Haulers, 431 F. 2d 1046, 1048 (3d Cir.1970)).
Local 798 claims the district court erred in granting the preliminary injunction because plaintiffs did not demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. Local 798 argues it would prevail because the National Labor Relations Board has exclusive jurisdiction of this action and that plaintiffs have failed to exhaust their contractual grievance procedures. Although there may be merit to these contentions, they present a sufficiently close question so that the district court could probably have gone either way in its decision to a preliminary injunction. In such a case, there can be no abuse of discretion.
A thorough review of Local 798’s assertions can be had after the district court, upon full consideration, determines whether to grant a permanent injunction. See United States Steel Corp. v. Fraternal Association of Steel Haulers, 431 F. 2d at 1048.
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Ned L. Siegel v. Lepore, 234 F.3d 1163 (11th Cir. 2000)…er only if there was a clear abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Carillon Importers, Ltd. v. Frank Pesce Int’l Group Ltd., 112 F. 3d 1126, 1126 (11th Cir.1997) (per curiam); Revette v. International Ass’n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, 740 F. 2d 892, 893 (11th Cir.1984) (“The district court’s decision will not be reversed unless there is a clear abuse of discretion.”); Harris Corp. v. National Iranian Radio & Television, 691 F. 2d 1344, 1354 (11th Cir.1982). Because Plaintiffs still have not…
-
Am. Civil Liberties Union OF Fla. v. Miami-Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd., 557 F.3d 1177 (11th Cir. 2009)…is.”). “The review of a district court’s decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction is extremely narrow in scope.” Carillon Imps. v. Frank Pesce Int’l Group, 112 F. 3d 1125, 1126 (11th Cir.1997). See also Bevette v. Int’l Ass’n of Bridge, 740 F. 2d 892, 893 (11th Cir.1984) (“Appellate review of such a decision is very narrow.”). “This Court will not review the intrinsic merits of the case.” Id. (quoting United States v. Lambert, 695 F. 2d 536, 539 (11th Cir.1983) (internal quotation marks omitted)…
-
T.J. Cunningham v. Adams, 808 F.2d 815 (11th Cir. 1987)…nment for the duration of the litigation outweighs these considerations,10 we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in concluding otherwise. See Revette v. International Association of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, 740 F. 2d 892, 893 (11th Cir.1984) (no abuse of discretion where district court could have decided close question either way). AFFIRMED. . When the appeal was initially filed, there was some question as to this Court’s jurisdiction because it was unclear whethe…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Lambert, 695 F.2d 536 (11th Cir. 1983)
- Harris Corp. v. Nat'l Iranian Radio & Television & Bank Melli Iran, 691 F.2d 1344 (11th Cir. 1982)
- United States Steel Corp. v. Fraternal Ass'n OF Steelhaulers, 431 F.2d 1046 (3d Cir. 1970)
- Gray Line Motor Tours, Inc. v. City OF NEW Orleans, 498 F.2d 293 (5th Cir. 1974)