Analytical Systems Corp. v. Small Business Administration

D. Massachusetts

Analytical Systems Corp. v. Small Business Administration

346 F. Supp. 1149, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13932

CourtDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts

DecidedMay 2, 1972

DocketCiv. A. 71-1638-F

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 346 F. Supp. 1149 (Analytical Systems Corp. v. Small Business Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Analytical Systems Corp. v. Small Business Administration, 346 F. Supp. 1149, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13932 (D. Mass. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

FRANCIS J. W. FORD, District Judge.

Plaintiffs here seek to enjoin defendants from classifying Input-Output Computer Services, Inc. (IOCS) as a disadvantaged business and from awarding a certain contract to IOCS for fiscal year 1973 without competitive bids.

At a hearing on their motion for a preliminary injunction, plaintiffs did not urge the contentions of their complaint that the award of the contract would violate their constitutional or statutory rights, but relied solely on their contention that the award would violate defendant Small Business Administration’s own regulations in that there is a reasonable possibility that IOCS could obtain the contract under normal competitive procedures and hence is not eligible to receive an award without competitive bidding. 13 CFR 124.8-1(d).

From a consideration of the affidavits filed by both parties on the factual issue of whether IOCS has at this point developed the management capacity needed to prepare bids which would give it a reasonable possibility of obtaining the contract under competitive conditions, the Court cannot find that plaintiffs, on the evidence now before the Court, have shown a reasonable probability of proving their contentions at a full trial on the merits so as to justify the granting of preliminary injunctive relief at this point.

*1150 More importantly, however, injunctive relief is not available in any case against the defendant administrator of the Small Business Administration. The Small Business Act specifically provides that “no attachment, injunction, garnishment, or other similar process, mesne or final, shall be issued against the administrator or his property.” 15 U.S.C. § '634(b) (1). Vincent v. Small Business Administration, 4 Cir., 402 F.2d 769, 771; Lloyd Wood Construction Company v. Sandoval, D.C., 318 F.Supp. 1167, 1171, 1172; Von Lusch v. Hoffmaster, D.C., 253 F.Supp. 633, 635, 636.

Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

FRANCIS J. W. FORD, District Judge.

Plaintiffs here seek to enjoin defendants from classifying Input-Output Computer Services, Inc. (IOCS) as a disadvantaged business and from awarding a certain contract to IOCS for fiscal year 1973 without competitive bids.

At a hearing on their motion for a preliminary injunction, plaintiffs did not urge the contentions of their complaint that the award of the contract would violate their constitutional or statutory rights, but relied solely on their contention that the award would violate defendant Small Business Administration’s own regulations in that there is a reasonable possibility that IOCS could obtain the contract under normal competitive procedures and hence is not eligible to receive an award without competitive bidding. 13 CFR 124.8-1(d).

From a consideration of the affidavits filed by both parties on the factual issue of whether IOCS has at this point developed the management capacity needed to prepare bids which would give it a reasonable possibility of obtaining the contract under competitive conditions, the Court cannot find that plaintiffs, on the evidence now before the Court, have shown a reasonable probability of proving their contentions at a full trial on the merits so as to justify the granting of preliminary injunctive relief at this point.

*1150 More importantly, however, injunctive relief is not available in any case against the defendant administrator of the Small Business Administration. The Small Business Act specifically provides that “no attachment, injunction, garnishment, or other similar process, mesne or final, shall be issued against the administrator or his property.” 15 U.S.C. § '634(b) (1). Vincent v. Small Business Administration, 4 Cir., 402 F.2d 769, 771; Lloyd Wood Construction Company v. Sandoval, D.C., 318 F.Supp. 1167, 1171, 1172; Von Lusch v. Hoffmaster, D.C., 253 F.Supp. 633, 635, 636.

Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

346 F. Supp. 1149, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13932, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/analytical-systems-corp-v-small-business-administration-mad-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack