John A. Grimaldi, D.O., Inc. v. Restis
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court considered Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to restrain Defendants from using or disclosing Protected Health Information accessed from Plaintiff's Electronic Medical Records System. The court denied the motion, finding that Plaintiff failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Preliminary Injunction Denied“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the four-factor test from Winter v. NRDC, requiring a showing on all four prongs. The court found that Plaintiff failed to meet the first prong (likelihood of success) because there was no admissible evidence of CFAA violations (access was authorized) and no evidence of trade secret misappropriation (use was for protected activity). The court also found Plaintiff failed to meet the second prong (irreparable harm) because Defendants swore they did not possess the PHI. Because failure on any single prong is fatal, the denial is legally sound based on the record recited in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order is sound. It correctly identifies the applicable legal standard (Winter factors) and applies it to the specific facts recited in the order. The court explicitly states that Plaintiff failed to establish likelihood of success on the merits (due to lack of admissible evidence for CFAA and trade secret claims) and irreparable harm (due to sworn statements that PHI was not possessed). Since failure on any one prong is sufficient to deny a preliminary injunction, the court's reasoning is legally sufficient and supported by the cited authorities.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 JOHN A. GRIMALDI, D.O., INC., Case No.: 20cv691-CAB-BLM 13 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 14 v. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 15 WILLIAM RESTIS, and JULIE RESTIS, [Doc. No. 3] 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 On April 10, 2020, Plaintiff John A. Grimaldi, D.O, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed a 20 complaint against Defendants William Restis and Julie Restis (“Defendants”) for (1) 21 Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act; (2) Violation of the Computer Data 22 Access and Fraud Act; (3) Fraud; (4) Breach of Contract; (5) Tortious Interference with 23 Contract; (6) Trespass; (7) Misappropriation of Trade Secrets; and (8) Declaratory 24 Judgment. [Doc. No. 1.] On the same date, Plaintiff also filed an Ex Parte Application for 25 Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause for Preliminary Injunction, by 26 which Plaintiff sought to restrain Defendants from “using, disclosing, or otherwise making 27 accessible to any person [] Protected Health Information [“PHI”] and/or Personally 28 Identifying Information [“PII”] of Plaintiff’s patients” that Defendants accessed from 1 Plaintiff’s Electronic Medical Records System (“EMR”) without authorization on or 2 around February 20 and March 2, 2020.” [Doc. No. 3.] 3 On April 10, 2020, District Judge Sammartino granted the Ex Parte Application for 4 a Temporary Restraining Order and set a briefing schedule and hearing for a Preliminary 5 Injunction. [Doc. No. 4.] On April 16, 2020, Defendants filed an opposition to the ex parte 6 application. [Doc. Nos. 10, 11.] On April 17, 2020, the case was transferred to District 7 Judge Bencivengo. [Doc. No. 12.] On April 20, 2020, Plaintiff filed a reply to the 8 opposition. [Doc. No. 15.] 9 10 On April 23, 2020 the Court held a telephonic hearing regarding what is now a 11 motion for preliminary injunction. Charles S. LiMandri, Esq., John Hilary Barkley, Esq., 12 and Paul Michael Jonna, Esq. appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. Douglas A. Pettit, Esq. 13 appeared on behalf of Defendant William Restis. William Richard Restis, Esq. appeared 14 on behalf of Defendant Julie Restis. For the reasons stated at the hearing, and as set forth 15 below, the motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED. 16 DISCUSSION 17 A preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” 18 Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008); see Earth Island Inst. v. 19 Carlton, 626 F.3d 462, 469 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[P]laintiffs seeking a preliminary injunction 20 face a difficult task in proving that they are entitled to this ‘extraordinary remedy.’”) 21 (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 24). It is “a device for preserving the status quo and 22 preventing the irreparable loss of rights before judgment.” Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix 23 Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984). “The grant or denial of a motion for 24 a preliminary injunction lies within the discretion of the district court.” Johnson v. 25 California State Bd. of Accountancy, 72 F.3d 1427, 1429 (9th Cir. 1995). 26 In Winter, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction 27 must establish “[1] that he is likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer 28 1 || irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in 2 favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. The 3 || Ninth Circuit balances these “Winter factors” using a “sliding scale” approach, where “a 4 ||stronger showing of one element may offset a weaker showing of another.” All. for the 5 || Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (th Cir. 2011). However, Winter “requires 6 || the plaintiff to make a showing on all four prongs.” /d. at 1135. 7 For the reasons stated during the telephonic hearing, Plaintiff has failed to establish 8 likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm and, therefore, is not entitled to a 9 || preliminary injunction. There is no admissible evidence of violation of the Computer 10 || Fraud and Abuse Act because Defendant Julie Restis was given access to Plaintiff's EMR. 11 || There is no admissible evidence of misappropriation of trade secrets, as the only admissible 12 ||}evidence before the Court is that Defendant Julie Restis used the information for a 13 protected activity (filing a complaint with the Medical Review Board). In addition, 14 || Plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm, as Defendants have stated under oath that they 15 || are not in possession of any Protected Health Information related to Plaintiff’s patients.’ 16 || Given that Plaintiff has failed to make a showing on at least two of the Winter prongs, the 17 || motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED. 18 CONCLUSION 19 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED. 20 It is SO ORDERED. 21 ||Dated: April 23, 2020 € Z 22 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28 Should evidence surface that Defendants’ representations are false, Plaintiff is free to bring the appropriate motion for sanctions.