Skip to content

Court Issues Temporary Restraining Order Against Union

Richard J. Buturla, Chair of the litigation department, recently obtained a temporary restraining order, on behalf of Project Service LLC, operator of the twenty three food and fuel service plazas located throughout the State of Connecticut. The order pertained to a rally organized by Service Employees International Union, Local 32BJ SEIU scheduled to be held at the I-95 Darien service plaza during the lunch time hours just a few days before the busy Labor Day holiday. In an extremely short period of time, Berchem Moses PC’s litigation department was able to identify and retain a traffic and safety expert as well as prepare and file applications for both a temporary injunction and ex parte temporary restraining order and supporting documents in order to obtain an emergency hearing before the Superior Court literally hours before the rally was to occur.

Based on Berchem Moses PC’s filings with the Court and following oral argument, a Superior Court Judge reached the conclusion that Project Service LLC had demonstrated that it was likely to suffer a substantial and irreparable injury and that it had satisfied all remaining statutory requirements set forth in Section 31-115 of the Connecticut General Statutes to support the issuance of a temporary restraining order. In addition to restraining the scope of the rally, the Court imposed several restrictions on the participants of the rally. Specifically, participants of the rally were precluded from interfering with Project Service LLC’s business operations as well as interfering with the safety and security of the traveling public visiting the service plaza and patrons and employees inside the Service Area building. Participants of the rally were not only confined to a small area, but were precluded from entering the Service Area building as well as impeding vehicle travel, vehicle parking and the gasoline pump station areas. Despite representations made by 32BJ SEUI that it had reached an agreement with state authorities concerning the location of the rally, the Court was ultimately persuaded by the opinion of Project Service’s expert and its supporting documents that there was a likelihood of the rally interfering with the traveling public if the Court did not act to impose restrictions on the scope of the rally.