[his] debarment is stayed or enjoined, [his] insurance business may be severely damaged” because “[l]ong-standing clients ... [may be] unwilling, or unable, to do business with a debarred individual” and it will be difficult for him to attract new customers. Id. ¶ 12. While these statements by Feiner-man hardly present an overwhelming case for a finding of irreparable injury, they do suggest that he is likely to suffer at least some degree of irreparable injury absent preliminary injunctive relief, which may be sufficient to warrant injunctive relief depending on the degree to which the other factors considered in assessing a plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction favor the plaintiff. See CityFed Fin. Corp. v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 58 F.3d 738, 747 (D.C.Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). The defendant argues that “monetary loss is
holding that a motion for a preliminary injunction and a hearing on that motion were insufficient to prevent the plaintiff from dismissing by notice holding that injunction seeker must demonstrate no adequate remedy at law holding that plaintiffs were not entitled to a preliminary injunction holding misrepresentation must at least be partial cause of plaintiffs injury holding that a party seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate at least some injury to succeed on his motion quoting sampson 415 us at 88 94 sct 937