“[T]he resolution of debarment cases ‘is a serious matter’ that has an immediate and profound effect on the particular individuals involved.” Canales, 2007 WL 2071709, *5 n. 5 (quoting Commercial Drapery Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 133 F.3d 1, 6 (D.C.Cir.1998)). In this case, it appears that the Debarring Official acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in resolving the plaintiffs’ debarment proceeding. Because the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim under the APA disputing those actions, the public interest favors Feinerman, and the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs establishes that Feinerman will suffer some form of irreparable injury absent injunctive relief, the Court will grant the plaintiffs’ motion with respect to Feinerman. See CityFed, 58 F.3d at 747 (<HOLDING>). At the same time, “[i]t frequently is
holding that success on a motion to sever requires a strong showing of prejudice holding that a movant that clearly establishes likelihood of success on the merits receives the benefit of a presumption of irreparable harm holding that injunctive relief may be warranted where there is a particularly strong likelihood of success on the merits even if there is a relatively slight showing of irreparable injury holding that a court may issue injunctive relief only when the movant demonstrates four factors substantial likelihood of success on the merits irreparable harm no substantial injury to the other party and furtherance of the public interest holding that even when likelihood of success has been established the absence of irreparable injury standing alone makes preliminary injunctive relief improper