Additionally, this "extraordinary" remedy "should best be used sparingly." Jerome-Duncan, Inc. v. Auto-By-Tel, L.L.C., 966 F. Supp. 540, 541 (E.D. Mich. 1997) (Gadola, J.) (citations omitted). When considering whether to grant the "extraordinary" remedy of a preliminary injunction, a district court must consider and balance four factors: (1) whether the moving party has a strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the moving party would suffer irreparable injury without the preliminary injunction; (3) whether issuance of the preliminary injunction would cause substantial harm to others; and (4) whether the public interest would be served by issuance of the preliminary injunction.
Jerome-Duncan, Inc. v. Auto-By-Tel, L.L.C. 966 F.Supp. 540, 541 (E.D. Mich. 1997) (alterations and quotations omitted). Plaintiff has failed to establish that it will suffer irreparable harm absent the injunction as the damages it complains of are monetary.
See, e.g., Innoviant Pharmacy, Inc. v. Morganstern, 390 F. Supp. 2d 179, 190 (N.D.N.Y. 2005) (finding that the threatened loss of referral sources constitutes irreparable harm, as referral sources are "one step removed" from "the ultimate source of Innoviant's revenue"); but see Guttenberg v. Emery, 26 F. Supp. 3d 88, 102 (D.D.C. 2014) (finding no irreparable harm despite plaintiffs' argument that "because their business is based on referrals, lost referrals threaten[] their practice"); Jerome-Duncan, Inc. v. Auto-By-Tel, L.L.C., 966 F. Supp. 540, 543 (E.D. Mich. 1997) ("Should a determination of damages be required at a latter date, a court could look to [plaintiff's] past performance or . . . the actual dealers which received the referrals in place of [plaintiff]. There is nothing unique about this case, with regard to damages, which would take it out of the ordinary breach of contract remedies context.").