Four Seasons Hotels & Resorts, B v. v. Consorcio Barr, S.A.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the district court abused its discretion when it “effectively issued and upheld the injunction based on evidence presented by only one party” and without holding an evidentiary hearing
• stating that the moving party is not entitled to a preliminary injunction unless it establishes its burden as to all four prerequisites
• holding “the appropriate amount of notice is properly left to the district court’s discretion,” who can consider whether a nonmovant has requested more time
• concluding that two days' notice was insufficient
• explaining that “the nonmoving party must have notice and an opportunity to present its opposition to the injunction” and that “the sufficiency of notice ‘is a matter left within the discretion of the trial court’” (citations omitted)
• requiring all four factors, including irreparable 4 The Court need not reach Smith’s additional argument that ActivEngage’s breach of fiduciary duty claim is preempted. (See Doc. 48, p. 10.) injury, to warrant a preliminary injunction

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).