Servably, Inc. v. Crown
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
The court considered a joint motion by the plaintiff and defendant to enter a stipulated preliminary injunction in a trade secrets and contract dispute. The court granted the joint motion, enjoining the defendant from using or disclosing trade secrets and ordering an independent review, while denying the plaintiff's original motion for preliminary injunction as moot.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the Parties' Joint Motion for Entry of Preliminary Injunction“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Parties’ Joint Motion (ECF No. 16) and ORDERS (1) Defendant Brandi Crown is preliminarily enjoined from using, disclosing, or transmitting Syncro’s trade secrets, or its proprietary and confidential information, including her retained knowledge of the contents of the downloaded files as identified in the Complaint in this matter, and (2) an independent review shall be conducted and completed in accordance with the Parties’ Settkement Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding, executed on November 15, 2024.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for reviewing stipulated preliminary injunctions, ensuring the terms are fair, reasonable, and equitable. The order recites the necessary findings (irreparable harm, inadequacy of legal remedies, balance of hardships, public interest) to support the equitable relief, even though the parties stipulated to the terms. |
Denying Plaintiff's initial Motion for Preliminary Injunction as Moot“In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's initial Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 10) as MOOT, and VACATES the December 9, 2024 hearing on that matter.” | agree with court Because the relief sought in the initial motion was granted via the joint stipulation, the initial motion is moot. Denying it as moot is the standard procedural mechanism to clear the docket. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the legal standard for reviewing stipulated preliminary injunctions under Ninth Circuit precedent. It explicitly finds that the proposed terms are fair, reasonable, and equitable, and recites the standard preliminary injunction factors (irreparable harm, inadequacy of legal remedies, balance of hardships, public interest) to support the entry of the order. The procedural handling of the original motion as moot is appropriate.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SERVABLY, INC., d/b/a SYNCRO MSP, Case No.: 24-CV-1685 JLS (VET)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 v. MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 14 BRANDI CROWN, 15 Defendant. (ECF No. 16) 16 17 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Servably, Inc. d/b/a/ Syncro MSP (“Syncro” 18 or “Plaintiff”) and Defendant Brandi Crown’s (“Defendant”) (collectively, the “Parties”) 19 Motion for Entry of an Order of Preliminary Injunction (“Joint Mot.,” ECF No. 16). 20 On September 20, 2024, Plaintiff brought this action against Defendant for purported 21 violations for purported violations of the Defense of Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1836, 22 et seq. (“DTSA”), the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 3426 et seq., 23 California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, breach of contract, and 24 conversion. See generally Complaint (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1. Subsequently, on October 25 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (“PI Mot.,” ECF No. 10) 26 seeking to preliminarily enjoin Defendant from using, disclosing, or transmitting Syncro’s 27 trade secrets, or its proprietary confidential information, including her retained knowledge 28 of the contents of the improperly downloaded files, and seeking an order that she provide 1 a third-party reviewer, or Syncro’s outside counsel with attorney-eyes-only access to (i) all 2 personal email accounts, (ii) any and all computing devices in her possession, custody, or 3 control, and (iii) any other storage, account, or device on which she may have stored, or 4 through which she may have transferred, Syncro’s trade secrets or confidential or 5 proprietary information. PI Mot. at 2. 6 The Parties have conferred on the terms of a preliminary injunction to be entered in 7 response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Defendant stipulates with 8 Plaintiff to allow entry and enforcement of a preliminary injunction, while denying liability 9 in the substantive claims at issue. Joint Mot. at 2. 10 The Court, having reviewed the stipulation and other relevant pleading and matters 11 of record, finds that the entry of the Parties’ proposed Preliminary Injunction is “fair, 12 reasonable and equitable and does not violate the law or public policy.” Sierra Club, Inc. 13 v. Elec. Controls Design, Inc., 909 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1990); Fed. Trade Comm’n 14 v. Enforma Nat. Prods., Inc., 362 F.3d 1204, 1218 (9th Cir. 2004) (equating a consent 15 decree to a stipulated preliminary injunction, “which is essentially a proposed injunction 16 that reflects a temporary settlement”); see also, e.g., EcoShield Pest Sols. Portland, LLC v. 17 Grit Mktg., LLC, No. 3:24-CV-00887-HZ, 2024 WL 2957072, at *1 (D. Or. June 12, 2024); 18 N. Cent. Distrib., Inc. v. Bogenschutz, No. 117cv01351AWIEPG, 2019 WL 1004843, at *1 19 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2019); Montrose Env’t Grp., Inc. v. Zephyr Air Quality Servs., LLC, 20 No. 2:16-CV-00433-SAB, 2017 WL 393606, at *1 (E.D. Wash. Jan. 27, 2017). 21 In that regard, the Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to the preliminary injunctive relief 22 specified below; that Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable injury if 23 the requested relief is not granted; that remedies available at law, such as monetary 24 damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; that, considering the balance of 25 hardships between the Plaintiff and Defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and that 26 the public interest would not be disserved by entering the proposed Preliminary Injunction. 27 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Parties’ Joint Motion (ECF No. 16) and 28 ORDERS (1) Defendant Brandi Crown is preliminarily enjoined from using, disclosing, 1 |/or transmitting Syncro’s trade secrets, or its proprietary and confidential information, 2 ||including her retained knowledge of the contents of the downloaded files as identified in 3 ||the Complaint in this matter, and (2) an independent review shall be conducted and 4 ||completed in accordance with the Parties’ Settkement Agreement and Memorandum of 5 || Understanding, executed on November 15, 2024. 6 In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's initial Motion for 7 || Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 10) as MOOT, and VACATES the December 9, 2024 8 || hearing on that matter. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: November 25, 2024 , tt i Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28