The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Believing that CUI (P) had billed the City (D) for goods that P knew it had not delivered, D, after months of wrangling, notified P that it proposed to cancel all P's contracts with D and bar it from further contracts with D. P was given 30 days to respond to the proposal; it responded; and D then terminated the contracts and instituted a three-year bar. P filed suit in the federal district court in Chicago. P sought injunctive relief on the ground that D had violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to give P a predeprivation hearing. P moved for a preliminary injunction, and a temporary restraining order, to prevent the cancellation and debarment. The district court granted the TRO and then renewed it. D notified P that it was withdrawing its cancellation and rescinding the debarment order. D moved to dismiss P's lawsuit as moot. The district court denied the motion. The temporary restraining order was then extended by agreement of the parties for another month, to October 31. P then asked the court to modify the order to prevent D from circumventing it. The order was again extended by consent to November 21st for the preliminary injunction hearing. Before that date arrived, the court modified the order in favor of P. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.