Marvin Goldfarb, Et. Al. v. El Paso Corporation, Et. Al.

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.
47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
December 6, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 05-20078
_____________________
MARVIN GOLDFARB, ET. AL.
Plaintiffs
v.
EL PASO CORPORATION, ET. AL.
Defendants
EL PASO CORPORATION
Defendant - Appellee
v.
MAX COHEN
Appellant
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
No. 4:04-CV-3443
_________________________________________________________________
Before KING, Chief Judge, and BARKSDALE and PRADO, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
This is an appeal from the district court’s order staying a
pending state court proceeding. On December 9, 2004, the
district court entered an order, which provided, in full, that

-- 1 of 2 --

2
“[t]he action in Delaware court called Max Cohen v. El Paso
Corporation, Civil Action 551-N (Del. Ch. Ct.) is stayed.”
Before issuing its order, the district court did not provide
notice and a hearing to appellant Max Cohen as required by FED.
R. CIV. P. 65(a)(1). See Williams v. McKeithen, 939 F.2d 1100,
1105 (5th Cir. 1991) (noting that 65(a)(1)’s notice requirement
implies “‘a hearing in which the [parties are] given a fair
opportunity to oppose the application and to prepare for such
opposition’” (quoting Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of
Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70 of Alameda County,
415 U.S. 423, 433 n.7 (1974))). The district court also did not
set forth any findings of fact or conclusions of law in granting
the preliminary injunction as required by FED. R. CIV. P. 52(a).
We agree with the parties that the appropriate procedure in
this case is to remand the case to the district court with
instructions that the district court provide notice and a hearing
as required by FED. R. CIV. P. 65(a)(1) and enter the necessary
findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by FED. R.
CIV. P. 52(a).
REMANDED. The preliminary injunction currently in place is
hereby VACATED on the earlier of the date of the district court’s
new order or at the close of business on March 3, 2006. The
mandate shall issue forthwith.

-- 2 of 2 --