VIZOCOM ICT LLC v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
| VIZOCOM ICT LLC |
| DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY |
| 1:2020cv00217 |
| January 27, 2020 |
| US District Court for the District of Columbia |
| Randolph D Moss |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1331 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 5, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
MINUTE ORDER: In light of Plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal #8 , it is hereby ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the case. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 3/5/20. (lcrdm3, )
|
| Filing 8 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by VIZOCOM ICT LLC (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pittman, John) |
| Filing 7 Consent MOTION to Stay re #3 Complaint by VIZOCOM ICT LLC (Pittman, John) |
|
MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Plaintiff's consent motion to stay #7 , it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction, Dkt. #5 is hereby DEEMED withdrawn. The motion hearing previously set for February 12, 2020, is VACATED. The case is STAYED until March 4, 2020. The parties are further ORDERED to file a joint status report or stipulation of dismissal on or before March 4, 2020. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 2/3/20. (lcrdm3) Modified on 2/4/2020 to correct link for the motion for preliminary injunction(kt).
|
|
MINUTE ORDER: To prevail on a motion for a temporary restraining order ("TRO"), the movant must show " #1 that [it] is likely to succeed on the merits; #2 that [it] s likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; #3 that the balance of equities tips in [its] favor; and #4 that an injunction is in the public interest." Winter v. Nat'l Resources Defense Council Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Sterline Commer. Credit Mich., LLC v. Phoenix Indus. I, 762 F. Supp. 2d 8, 12 (D.D.C. 2011) (explaining that the preliminary injunction standard also applies to temporary restraining orders). Plaintiff has failed to carry that burden. As discussed at the hearing, Plaintiff has failed to carry its burden of demonstrating that it is likely to prevail on the merits. Plaintiff has yet to show that this Court has jurisdiction or venue. When asked what agency action Plaintiff was challenging, Plaintiff indicated that it seeks to challenge a range of actions, but it did not identify any act occurring in the District of Columbia, nor does Plaintiff reside here. Moreover, the thrust of Plaintiff's case is directed at a search warrant issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and the public docketing of that search warrant. This Court is unconvinced that it has any authority to remedy the actions taken by a sister district court. To the extent Plaintiff challenges a "stop order" placed on contacts it has with the Defense Logistics Agency ("DLA"), Plaintiff has failed to show at least at this early stage of the proceeding that this Court has jurisdiction over contract disputes of that type. More importantly, the government represented at the hearing on Plaintiff's motion for a TRO that the DLA merely placed a hold on the contracts while it obtains and considers information relating to the contracts. The government further represented that Plaintiff has now provided that information to the DLA, and the DLA is considering how to proceed in light of Plaintiff's response. As a result, the Court is not yet convinced the Plaintiff's challenges to any action taken by the DLA, as opposed to the Department of Justice in the course of criminal investigation, is ripe for consideration, even if the Court otherwise had jurisdiction and venue. Finally, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that it will suffer an irreparable injury if the Court does not grant immediate relief. The evidence before the Court suggests that Plaintiff may suffer financial losses in light of the criminal investigation and questions the DLA has about its contracts with Plaintiff, but Plaintiff has not shown that it is likely to sustain debilitating losses over the next few weeks, while the Court considers Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction. To be clear, the Court has not concluded that it lacks venue or jurisdiction, that Plaintiff's claims lack merit, or that Plaintiff will not suffer serious injury absent judicial intervention. Rather, the Court merely holds that Plaintiff bears the burden with respect to each of these considerations, and Plaintiff has yet to carry that burden. Plaintiff's motion for a TRO is, accordingly, denied. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 1/29/20. (lcrdm3, ) Modified on 1/29/2020 to correct typos (kt).
|
| Filing fee received: $ 400.00, receipt number: 4616102222. (ztd) |
| Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Randolph D. Moss: Motion Hearing held on 1/28/2020 re: #5 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by VIZOCOM ICT LLC. Plaintiff's Brief due by 2/3/2020; Defendants' Response due by 2/10/2020. Motion Hearing CONTINUED to 2/12/2020, at 10:00 AM, in Courtroom 21, before Judge Randolph D. Moss. (Court Reporter: Jeff Hook.) (kt) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE of Appearance by April Denise Seabrook on behalf of All Defendants (Seabrook, April) |
| Filing 5 WITHDRAWN (See Minute Order dated 2/3/2020)..... MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by VIZOCOM ICT LLC (Attachments: #1 Attachments, #2 Text of Proposed Order)(ztd) Modified on 2/4/2020 (kt). |
| Filing 4 LCvR 26.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests by VIZOCOM ICT LLC (ztd) |
| Filing 3 COMPLAINT against DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA filed by VIZOCOM ICT LLC. (Attachments: #1 Attachments, #2 Civil Cover Sheet)(ztd) |
|
Filing 2
ORDER denying #1 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on 1/27/20. (ztd)
|
| Filing 1 MOTION for Leave to File by VIZOCOM ICT LLC (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(ztd) |
| SUMMONS (4) Issued as to DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (ztd) |
|
MINUTE ORDER: The parties are hereby ORDERED to appear for a hearing on the motion for a temporary restraining order on January 28, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 21. Counsel for the Plaintiff is further ORDERED to provide notice of this order to counsel for the Defendant, once identified. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 1/27/20. (lcrdm3, )
|
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the District Of Columbia District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
