Civil Practice – Preliminary Injunction – Contract – Dealership or Distributor – Insufficient Showing

Machinery Solutions, Inc. v. Doosan Corp. (Lawyers Weekly No. 002-170-15, 16 pp.) (J. Michelle Childs, J.) 3:15-cv-03447; D.S.C.

Holding: Given the open questions as to whether the “Distribution Agreement” between plaintiff and defendant Doosan Corp. is between two dealers and whether plaintiff qualifies as a “dealer” under the South Carolina Fair Practices of Farm, Construction, Industrial, and Outdoor Power Equipment Manufacturers, Distributors, Wholesalers, and Dealers Act (S.C. Fair Practices Act) or is instead a distributor, plaintiff has not made a clear showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its S.C. Fair Practices Act claims, which arise out of Doosan’s termination of the Distribution Agreement.

Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.

Plaintiff’s request for an injunction in North Carolina and Georgia must be denied because the S.C. Fair Practices Act cannot be interpreted to have extraterritorial effect.

In addition, none of the harms plaintiff has alleged – lost sales, lost investment in training employees, and lost warranty contracts – can be considered irreparable because they can arguably be compensated through monetary damages. Furthermore, Doosan’s termination of the Distribution Agreement does not prohibit plaintiff from continuing to sell other manufacturers’ products, as it does now.

Motion denied.