DIRECTV, LLC v. E and E Enterprises Global, Inc.

Filing 13

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS Plaintiffs application for a TRO. In addition, a Preliminary Injunction Hearing is set for Friday, September 1, 2017 at 1:00 p.m., unless the parties agree on another date and so advise the court. (see order for further details)granting 5 APPLICATION for TRO (yl)

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13
14

DIRECTV, LLC, A CALIFORNIA
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,

15
16
17
18
19

Plaintiff,
v.
E&E ENTERPRISES GLOBAL, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 17-06110 DDP (PLAx)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER
[Dkt. 5]

20
21

This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff DIRECTV’s application for a

22

temporary restraining order (“TRO”). After reviewing and considering the materials

23

submitted by Plaintiff, the court GRANTS the application.

24
25

I. BACKGROUND
On August 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging four causes of action,

26

including breach of written contract, conversion, tortious interference with prospective

27

economic relations, and unfair competition, against Defendant E&E Enterprises Global,

28

Inc. (“E&E”) in connection with E&E’s agreement to promote and sell DIRECTV

1
2
3
4
5

programming and services, to collect the charges for DIRECTV programing and services,
and to remit those charges to DIRECTV. Also on August 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed an
application for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”), seeking an order that E&E hand
over all contractually-required customer contact information and immediately notify all
accounts previously serviced by E&E that E&E is no longer a DIRECTV dealer or billing

6

agent.

7

II. LEGAL STANDARD

8

The Supreme Court set forth the standard for assessing a motion for

9

preliminary injunction in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365,

10

376 (2008). “Under Winter, plaintiffs seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that

11

(1) they are likely to succeed on the merits; (2) they are likely to suffer irreparable harm

12

in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in their favor; and (4) a

13

preliminary injunction is in the public interest.” Sierra Forest Legacy v. Rey, 577 F.3d 1015,

14

1021 (9th Cir. 2009).

15

III. DISCUSSION
Having reviewed Plaintiff’s pleadings and without the benefit of an opposition

16
17

from Defendant, the court concludes that Plaintiff has made a showing of likelihood of

18

success on the merits and that the balance of hardships weighs in favor of issuing the

19

TRO.

20

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant E&E entered into several written agreements to

21

promote and sell DIRECTV programming and services as a commissioned sales

22

representative for DIRECTV, and to provide billing and collection services for DIRECTV

23

programming and services. These written agreements provide inter alia that, upon

24

termination of the agreements between DIRECTV and E&E, E&E is to (1) direct all

25

customer inquiries regarding DIRECTV programming and services to DIRECTV, and (2)

26

within 10 days of any request by DIRECTV, to send written notices to DIRECTV

27

customers informing them of the transfer of billing from E&E to DIRECTV (Decl.

28

McCree, Ex. B). The agreements further provide that, upon termination, DIRECTV will
2

1
2
3
4
5

process all future billing and collection activities, and that E&E and DIRECTV will work
together to transition billing and collection activities. (Decl. McCree, Ex. C). Plaintiff
maintains that E&E has not performed any of these actions, despite the termination of the
agreements.
Plaintiff has therefore shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its contract

6

claims. Moreover, E&E has alleged loss of goodwill arising from the premature

7

termination of customer accounts, and the risk that money damages will be inadequate

8

because E&E is at significant risk of insolvency. Therefore, the absence of a TRO would

9

likely cause Plaintiff immediate, irreparable harm. Moreover, it does not appear that

10

Defendant will suffer any great injury should a TRO issue that directs it to comply with

11

its contractual obligations. Further, the court concludes that a TRO would benefit the

12

public interest in maintaining the integrity of contractual agreements.

13

Therefore, at this time, the court is persuaded that a TRO should issue. The court

14

will consider Defendants’ arguments at the upcoming hearing for a preliminary

15

injunction. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that Defendant (1) deliver immediately to

16

DIRECTV all contractually-required customer contact information, to allow DIRECTV to

17

complete the billing transition away from E&E; (2) notify immediately all accounts

18

previously serviced by E&E that E&E is no longer a DIRECTV dealer or billing agent, and

19

that those customers need to transition their accounts to DIRECTV directly or a new

20

DIRECTV dealer.

21

//

22

//

23

//

24

//

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

//
3

1
2
3
4

IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s application for a TRO. In
addition, a Preliminary Injunction Hearing is set for Friday, September 1, 2017 at 1:00
p.m., unless the parties agree on another date and so advise the court.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: August 22, 2017

9

___________________________________

10

DEAN D. PREGERSON

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4