Giddings v. Oanda Corp.

Background

Warren Matthew Giddings, who was representing himself, brought a Federal Tort Claims Act case against Oanda Corp., the United States, and Max F. Brauer. In his operative complaint, Giddings alleged that Oanda withheld his investment funds and failed to direct those funds as instructed. He also alleged that Brauer failed to respond to or investigate the matter and that the United States failed to respond, investigate, or take action.

The order describes ongoing difficulties serving Oanda. No affidavit of service had been filed for Oanda. After the U.S. Marshals Service could not locate Oanda at one address, the court denied Giddings’s request for alternative service but identified another address and ordered service there.

On June 14, 2022, Giddings filed an emergency motion for a preliminary injunction. He said he had sent Oanda a trade authorization to buy 50,000 units of EUR/USD at market but had not heard from Oanda. He asked the court to immediately require the defendants to carry out that trade. He characterized his alleged injuries as financial harm and also referred to alleged false or misleading statements about Oanda’s office locations, negligent misrepresentation, and a due-process violation.

Legal standard

A preliminary injunction is temporary court-ordered relief issued before the final resolution of a case. The moving party must show irreparable harm—harm that is actual and imminent, cannot be adequately remedied with money damages, and cannot be fixed by waiting until trial. The party must also show either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious legal questions combined with a balance of hardships favoring the requested relief. Because Giddings sought a mandatory injunction that would change the existing situation, the court stated that he also had to show a clear or substantial likelihood of success.

Ruling

The court held that Giddings could not show irreparable harm. It found that he alleged only financial harm and that money damages would compensate him if he ultimately succeeded on his claims. Because irreparable harm is required for a preliminary injunction, the court stated that it did not need to address the other requirements.

The court also stated that it had serious questions about whether Giddings could meet the substantial-likelihood-of-success standard, but it did not decide that issue. The court denied the motion at Doc. 96 and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion and mail Giddings a copy of the order.

The court reiterated its prior direction that Giddings refrain from filing unnecessary requests, except requests for extensions of service deadlines, until the defendants were served. It warned that it could sanction him for filing additional frivolous motions.