NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 20-1538
_____________
WILNICK DORVAL,
Appellant
v.
KAC 357 INC. d/b/a Plaza Extra Supermarket;
WALEED MOHAMMED HAMED
_______________
On Appeal from the District Court
of the Virgin Islands
(D.C. Civil No. 3-18-cv-00095)
District Judge: Honorable Anne E. Thompson
_______________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
December 10, 2020
Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, CHAGARES, and MATEY, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: December 17, 2020)
_______________
OPINION *
_______________
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does
not constitute binding precedent.
MATEY, Circuit Judge.
We consider Wilnick Dorval’s claims against Plaza Extra Supermarket and its
owner that for more than a year, store employees harassed and intimidated him because of
his race. Dorval filed this lawsuit in the District Court of the Virgin Islands, alleging mainly
racial discrimination and harassment, 1 and later filed motions for a preliminary injunction,
permanent injunction, and temporary restraints. Following a bench trial, the District Court
found for Appellees on all counts and denied Dorval injunctive relief. Dorval timely
appeals both orders. Finding no error, we will affirm.
I. DISCUSSION
A. Dorval’s Claims Fail as a Matter of Law
We review the District Court’s factual findings for clear error and exercise plenary
review over its legal conclusions. Trs. of Nat’l Elevator Indus. Pension, Health Benefit &
Educ. Funds v. Lutyk, 332 F.3d 188, 191 (3d Cir. 2003) (quoting In re Unisys Sav. Plan
Litig., 173 F.3d 145, 149 (3d Cir. 1999)). Applying those standards, we conclude that the
record supports the District Court’s judgment that the evidence did not prove Dorval’s
claims. Dorval points to certain video recordings, but they do not involve Plaza Extra
employees or named defendants. In contrast, other videos introduced at trial show Dorval
shopping at Plaza Extra without interruption or incident. Because there is no basis to set
aside the District Court’s findings, we agree that Dorval has not proven his allegations.
1
He also alleged negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
2
B. Dorval Is Not Entitled to Injunctive Relief
To obtain a preliminary injunction, 2 Dorval must show: (1) that he has “a reasonable
probability of eventual success” in litigation; (2) that he will suffer irreparable injury absent
injunctive relief; (3) that the balance of harms favors him; and (4) that the relief he requests
is in the public interest. Reilly v. City of Harrisburg, 858 F.3d 173, 176 (3d Cir. 2017)
(quoting Del. River Port Auth. v. Transamerican Trailer Transp., Inc., 501 F.2d 917, 919–
20 (3d Cir. 1974)). We agree with the District Court that Dorval has not shown that he was
treated differently by the Appellees based on his race. So injunctive relief cannot be
awarded, and the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it denied his motions.
II. CONCLUSION
Dorval’s evidence presented at trial did not prove his claims. And he has no basis
for injunctive relief. For those reasons, we will affirm.
2
Permanent injunctions have a similar standard but are harder to prove, because a
person must show actual success on the merits. Ferring Pharm., Inc. v. Watson Pharm.,
Inc., 765 F.3d 205, 215 n.9 (3d Cir. 2014). Because Dorval cannot meet the preliminary
injunction standard, he does not meet the requirements for a permanent injunction. We lack
jurisdiction to review the grant or denial of Dorval’s request for a temporary restraining
order. Robinson v. Lehman, 771 F.2d 772, 782 (3d Cir. 1985) (“The denial of a temporary
restraining order is not generally appealable unless its denial decides the merits of the case
or is equivalent to a dismissal of the claim.”). The exceptions for review do not apply here,
because the merits were decided by the District Court’s order and judgment after the trial,
not by the order on the motion for a temporary restraining order.
3