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

P filed suit against D. On the same day, P applied for and received an ex parte temporary restraining order that enjoined the defendant from: (a) taking any direct or indirect action to terminate the Sanction Agreement between the parties or otherwise acting in any way to prevent P from operating its hockey operations for the remainder of the 2000-2001 hockey season, including the playoffs; (b) implementing, maintaining or otherwise enforcing any actions based on the termination of the Sanction Agreement (including realigning the Central Hockey League games scheduled in place prior to February 20, 2001); and/or (c) preventing any Central Hockey League member club from appearing and/or playing the games as scheduled prior to February 20, 2001, based on such termination forthwith at any time prior to final hearing and disposition of P's application for temporary injunction, including any appellate proceedings, or except as otherwise ordered by this Court for good cause shown. D filed a notice of removal asserting diversity jurisdiction. The petition alleges that P is a limited liability company organized and existing under Kansas law and that D is a corporation organized and existing under Oklahoma law with its principal place of business in Indianapolis, Indiana. The removal petition asserts the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 in that P seeks as relief to be excused from its contractual obligation (subsection (d) of the Sanction Agreement) to make monthly payments of $10,000 which would have the pecuniary effect of denying D $80,000. D then filed a motion to set aside the temporary restraining order. P filed its response opposing this motion and then filed an amended motion to extend the TRO.

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

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

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