Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Points and Authorities

Points and Authorities

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,033|Likes:

More info:

Published by: Washington City Paper on Jun 18, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/18/2012

pdf

text

original

 
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIACIVIL DIVISION
SHAKESPEARE THEATRE COMPANY, et al.Plaintiffs,v.LANSBURGH THEATER, INC., et al.Defendants.2012 CA 004971 BJudge: John Ramsey JohnsonNext Event: Initial Conference9:30 am, Friday, September 21, 2012
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OFMOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Randall K. Miller (DC Bar No. 460682)Nicholas M. DePalma (DC Bar No. 974664)Daniel J. Stuart (DC Bar No. 996382)ARNOLD & PORTER LLP555 12th Street, N.W.Main: 202.942.5000Direct: 703.720.7030Facsimile: 202.942.5999E-mail: Randall.Miller@aporter.comE-mail: Nicholas.DePalma@aporter.com
 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Shakespeare TheatreCompany and Director Christopher Jennings
 
- i -
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
SUMMARY OF RELEVANT FACTS ..........................................................................................2ARGUMENT..................................................................................................................................5I. LEGAL STANDARD FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION...........................................5II. THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL LIKELIHOOD THAT STC WILL PREVAILON THE MERITS ..............................................................................................................6A. LTI Is Violating Its Articles....................................................................................61. LTI Is Violating Its Articles By Attempting To Terminate STCas Its “Supported Organization” .................................................................62. LTI Is Violating Its Articles By Failing To Be “ResponsiveToSTC’s Needs As Required ..........................................................................83. LTI Is Violating Its Articles By Permitting Improper“Disqualified PersonControl....................................................................9B. LTI Is Breaching Its Fiduciary Duties and Trust Relationship With STC............ 12C. LTI Is Breaching Its Lease And Course Of Dealing With STC ........................... 13III. STC IS FACING IMMINENT IRREPARABLE HARM................................................14A. STC’s Real Estate Interest Is Unique....................................................................14B. STC’s Reputation Is Threatened...........................................................................15C. STC Has No Adequate Remedy at Law................................................................16IV. MORE HARM WILL RESULT TO STC FROM DENIAL OF THISMOTION THAN TO LTI FROM ITS GRANT...............................................................16V. THE PUBLIC INTEREST FAVORS ENTRY OF A PRELIMINARYINJUNCTION...................................................................................................................16CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................18
 
- ii -
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESPage(s)C
ASES
1010 Potomac Assoc. v. Grocery Mfrs.
,485 A.2d 199 (D.C. 1984).......................................................................................................14
 Ackerman v. Feaster 
,2000 WL 35443269, No. 00 CA 433 (D.C. Super. Apr. 13, 2000)..........................................5
 Beckett v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n
,995 F.2d 280 (D.C. Cir. 1993)..........................................................................................12, 13
 Brown v. Artery Org., Inc.
,654 F. Supp. 1106 (D.D.C. 1987)...........................................................................................15
Cabaniss v. Cabaniss
,464 A.2d 87 (D.C. 1983).........................................................................................................12
Cobell v. Norton
,392 F.3d 461 (D.C. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................13
Coburn v. Heggestad 
,817 A.2d 813 (D.C. 2003).......................................................................................................14
 District of Columbia v. Greene
,806 A.2d 216 (D.C. 2002).......................................................................................................16
 Douglas v. Lyles
,841 A.2d 1 (D.C. 2004)...........................................................................................................14
Fairfield Resorts, Inc. v. Fairfield Mountain Prop. Owners Ass’n, Inc.
,No. 1:06CV191, 2006 WL 1889152 (W.D.N.C. July 7, 2006) ..............................................15
Flack v. Laster 
,417 A.2d 393 (D.C. 1980).......................................................................................................14
 In re: Estate of Reilly
,933 A.2d 830 (D.C. 2007).........................................................................................................5
 Monument Realty LLC v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth.
,540 F. Supp. 2d 66 (D.D.C. 2008)..........................................................................................15
 Mooring Tax Asset Grp., LLC v. Marks
,2005 WL 1140448, No. 03-CA-5830(RP) (D.C. Super. May 10, 2005).................................. 5

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->