Preview:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
MCALLISTER EQUIPMENT CO., et al, Plaintiffs, v. GREGORY D. QUIRK, et al., Defendants. Case No. 09-C-0915

ORDER On April 21, 2010, the court will continue hearing evidence on plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. Prior to the commencement of the hearing on March 16, 2010, I informed the parties that they should focus their arguments on the issue of whether Quirk was terminated for cause. However, assuming that plaintiffs establish that they are likely to succeed on the issue of whether Quirk was terminated for cause, then I will need to determine whether plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if I do not issue an injunction and whether defendants will be irreparably harmed if I do issue an injunction. Further, in the sliding scale potion of the analysis, I must balance the parties' respective irreparable harms against plaintiffs' likelihood of success. See, e.g., Roland Mach. Co. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 749 F.2d 380, 386-88 (7th Cir. 1984). For these reasons, I hereby advise the parties that they should be prepared to address these issues at the hearing. Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 16 day of April, 2010.

/s__________________________________ LYNN ADELMAN District Judge



Download 28482.pdf

Wisconsin Law