EpicentRx, Inc. v. Carter
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Larry Alan Burns (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff EpicentRx, Inc. filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) seeking the return of property and compliance with non-disclosure obligations following the termination of an employee. The court denied the TRO application for lack of urgency and status quo preservation, but construed the filing as a motion for a preliminary injunction and set a hearing for August 17, 2020.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Application for Temporary Restraining Order“Plaintiff hasn’t demonstrated the urgency necessary to justify issuance of a TRO; the Application is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard that a TRO is extraordinary relief requiring a showing of urgency and preservation of the status quo. The order notes that the plaintiff filed the complaint over a month prior to the TRO application and that the underlying events occurred two months prior, undermining the claim of urgency. Furthermore, the court correctly identified that ordering the return of property changes the status quo rather than preserving it, which is contrary to the purpose of a TRO as defined in Granny Goose Foods. The plaintiff's admission that the defendant had already committed to returning items further weakened the need for immediate ex parte relief. |
Construal of Filing as Application for Preliminary Injunction and Scheduling of Hearing“The Court construes the remainder of the filing as an application for a Preliminary Injunction and sets the matter for hearing on August 17, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 14A.” | agree with court It is standard practice for courts to construe a failed TRO motion as a motion for a preliminary injunction to preserve the plaintiff's request for injunctive relief while allowing for proper notice and a hearing. Setting a hearing and briefing schedule is within the court's discretion to manage the docket. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise but legally sound. It correctly identifies the high bar for TROs, specifically the need for urgency and the preservation of the status quo. The court effectively uses the timeline (complaint filed 5 weeks prior, events 2 months prior) to negate the urgency requirement. The distinction that returning property changes the status quo is a correct application of TRO jurisprudence. The order also appropriately pivots to a preliminary injunction framework, ensuring the plaintiff's substantive claims are addressed through the proper procedural vehicle.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 EPICENTRX, INC., CASE NO. 20-cv-1058-LAB (LL)
10 Plaintiff, PROTECTIVE ORDER AND ORDER 11 vs. DENYING APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 12 COREY A. CARTER 13 Defendants.
14 15 Plaintiff EpicentRx, Inc. filed this case on June 9, 2020. Five weeks later, 16 EpicentRx filed an ex parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). The 17 Court DENIES the application for a temporary restraining order for the reasons stated 18 below. 19 A temporary restraining order is extraordinary relief available only where such an 20 order “serv[es] [its] underlying purpose of preserving the status quo and preventing 21 irreparable harm before a preliminary injunction hearing may be held.” Granny Goose 22 Foods, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974). TROs are appropriate only where a party’s interests 23 are in urgent need of protection. See id. This Court hears such motions “[o]nly under 24 extraordinary circumstances.” Burns Standing Order in Civil Cases. 25 Circumstances here do not warrant issuance of a TRO. Based on a complaint filed 26 over a month ago and arising out of an employee’s termination two months ago, Plaintiff 27 asks the Court to direct the Defendant to return certain items and to comply with pre- 28 existing obligations not to spoliate evidence or misappropriate trade secrets. See Dkt. 1; 1 || Dkt. 5 at 13-14, 30-31. Plaintiff admits that Defendant has committed to returning at least 2 || some of the items in question by July 17, 2020. Dkt. 5-1 at 3. 3 Under these circumstances, the Court does find that matters are so urgent that 4 || injunctive relief is warranted without first permitting Defendant to be heard. Plaintiff 5 || provides no explanation for the delay in seeking relief, nor does the application identify 6 || any changed circumstances rendering matters more urgent than when Plaintiff filed its 7 || complaint. Moreover, while TROs are meant to “preserv[e] the status quo” until the Court 8 || hears from both parties, an order requiring a party to deliver possession of property would 9 || have the opposite effect on the status quo. Granny Goose Foods, 415 U.S. at 439. 10 Plaintiff hasn’t demonstrated the urgency necessary to justify issuance of a TRO; 11 || the Application is DENIED. 12 The Court construes the remainder of the filing as an application for a Preliminary 13 || Injunction and sets the matter for hearing on August 17, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 14 || 14A. Plaintiff must file a brief by July 22, 2020 on the issue of mootness resulting from 15 || Defendant’s promised return of certain items. Defendant’s response must be filed by 16 || August 3, 2020. No reply brief is to be filed without leave. If the Court determines that it 17 || can decide the matter on the papers, it may vacate the hearing set by this order. 18 Future filings must comply with the length limitations in the Court’s Local Rules. 19 20 || Dated: July 16, 2020 lau / 44 (4, WY 21 HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS 99 Chief United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28