Denali Water Solutions LLC v. Flahart

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 4:24-cv-00660-JM Document 82 Filed 12/11/25 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

CENTRAL DIVISION
DENALI WATER SOLUTIONS LLC PLAINTIFF
V. 4:24CV0660 JM

BENJAMIN C. FLAHART, HARTLAND FARMS LLC, HARTLAND FARMS INC.,
KILBY FARMS LLC DEFENDANTS

ORDER

On November 19, 2025, the parties appeared before the Court for a hearing on Denali Water
Solutions LLC’s (“Denali”) Motion for Preliminary Injunction. At the conclusion of the hearing,
the parties requested additional time to submit amended briefings which the Court granted.
Briefing is now complete.

As the parties argued at the hearing, the Court must consider “(1) the threat of irreparable
harm to the movant; (2) the state of balance between this harm and the injury that granting the
injunction will inflict on other parties litigant; (3) the probability that movant will succeed on the
merits; and (4) the public interest.” Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113 (8th
Cir. 1981). No single factor is dispositive, but the movant must establish a threat of irreparable
harm. Jd. Irreparable harm occurs when a party has no adequate remedy at law, typically because
its injuries cannot be fully compensated through an award of damages. Gen. Motors Corp. v. Harry
Brown's, LLC, 563 F.3d 312, 319 (8th Cir. 2009) Without such a finding, a preliminary injunction
should not be issued. Randolph v. Rodgers, 170 F.3d 850, 856 (8th Cir. 1999). “The party seeking
injunctive relief bears the burden of proving these factors.” Lankford v. Sherman, 451 F.3d 496,

503 (8 Cir. 2006).

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

After consideration of the witnesses’ testimony, review of the parties’ briefs, and the law,
the Court finds that Denali has failed to carry its burden of establishing a necessary and sufficient
risk of irreparable harm. The evidence in the record shows that Denali’s harm has been, and can
continue to be, calculated and quantified in monetary damages. There is no evidence that the injury
of lost customers or lost sales could not be remediated with money damages or that the alleged
amount of monetary loss could threaten the existence of Denali’s business. See Packard Elevator
v. I.C.C., 782 F.2d 112, 115 (8th Cir. 1986) (“Recoverable monetary loss may constitute irreparable
harm only where the loss threatens the very existence of the [petitioner]'s business.”).
Obviously, having found little evidence to establish irreparable harm to Denali, the Court's
finding regarding the balance of harms also weighs in favor of the Defendants. The Court sees little
evidence that Denali is being irreparably harmed, and according to the testimony of Mr.
Flahart his companies need the revenue from its CES business to remain viable. (Hearing Tr. at
4:04:50-59). Because a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of
right, the Court “must balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each
party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc.,
555 U.S. 7, 24, (2008) (quoting Amoco Production Co. v. Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 542 (1987)).
Granting an injunction could effectively close Defendants’ business—so, accordingly, the balance
of harms tips toward Defendants.
For these reasons, Denali’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 33) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of December, 2025.
_____________________________
James M. Moody Jr.
Case 4:24-cv-00660-JM Document 82 Filed 12/11/25 Page 2 of 3

Case 4:24-cv-00660-JM Document 82 Filed 12/11/25 Page 3 of 3

United States District Judge