AFAB Industrial Services, Inc. et al v. Apothio, LLC et al

Filing 16

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on October 4, 2019. (Munoz, I)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12
13

AFAB INDUSTRIAL SERVICES,
INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
APOTHIO, LLC, et al.,

Case No. 1:19-cv-01355-LJO-JLT
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER

Defendants.

14
15

After considering the papers filed in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for

16

Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Expedited Discovery,

17

filed on October 2, 2019, ECF No. 8 (“Motion”), the Court ordered Defendants to

18
19
20
21

respond to the Motion by 10:00 a.m. today, October 4, 2019. ECF No. 10. Defendants
were served copies of the Complaint, the Motion, and the Court’s Order setting a
deadline for a response. ECF Nos. 8-5, 13. No opposition was filed. For good cause

22
23
24
25

shown, the Court hereby enters the following Order.
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
The Court GRANTS the Motion and finds that Plaintiffs AFAB Industrial

26
27
28

Services, Inc. (“AFAB”), NewBridge Global Ventures, Inc. (“NEWBRIDGE”),
1

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT
ISSUE

1
2

EcoXtraction, LLC (“ECO”), CleanWave Labs, LLC (“CLEANWAVE”)
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) have shown (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a

3
4

likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary injunction relief; (3) that

5

the balance of equities tips in Plaintiffs’ favor; and (4) that preliminary injunctive

6

relief is in the public interest.
7
8

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Apothio, LLC (“APOTHIO”),

9

Apothio Bakersfield, LLC (“APOTHIO BAKERSFIELD”), and Trent Jones

10
11

(“JONES”) (collectively, “Defendants”), directly or indirectly, and whether alone or

12

in concert with others, including any officer, agent, employee, and/or representative

13

of APOTHIO or APOTHIO BAKERSFIELD, be and hereby are ENJOINED from:

14
15

a.

restricting or interfering with Plaintiffs’ access to the extraction

16

processing facility located at 580 South Derby Street, Arvin,

17

California 93203 known as The Los Osos Facility (the “Facility”)

18

solely for the purpose of retrieving and removing therefrom all of

19
20

the processing equipment and technology to be used to process

21

hemp that is owned by or leased for use by Plaintiffs (the

22

“Equipment”); and

23
24
25

b.

using, without authorization, the technology and/or inventions
covered by one or more of the claims of United States Patents No.

26
27
28

9,469,548 (“’540 Patent”); No. 8,430,968 (“’968 Patent”); No.
2

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT
ISSUE

7,507,014 (“’014 Patent”); No. 6,627,784 (“’784 Patent”); and

1
2

No. 10,220,365 (“’365 Patent”), including but not limited to the

3

Equipment.

4
5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall grant Plaintiffs immediate

6

access to the Facility solely for the purpose of retrieving and removing the
7
8

Equipment, and Plaintiffs shall remove all of the Equipment owned by or leased to

9

Plaintiffs therein.

10
11

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the funds and assets, including any

12

liquidations thereof, collected from the unauthorized use of the Equipment shall be

13

placed in a constructive trust pending a determination on Plaintiffs’ motion for

14
15
16
17

Preliminary Injunction.
Unless extended by separate order of the Court, this Temporary Restraining
Order shall expire at noon on Friday, October 18, 2019.

18
19
20
21

THIS TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER IS CONDITIONED UPON
PLAINTIFFS’ POSTING BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,000.00, pursuant to the
provisions of Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

22
23

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

24

Defendants are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing no later than 12:00

25

noon Pacific Time on October 14, 2019, why the above restraints should not be

26
27
28

3

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT
ISSUE

1
2

continued for an additional fourteen (14) day period. Plaintiffs may file a reply on or
before 12:00 noon Pacific Time on October 16, 2019.

3
4

Defendants are FURTHER ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing no later

5

than 12:00 noon Pacific Time on October 22, 2019, why Plaintiffs’ motion for

6

Preliminary Injunction should not be granted. Alternatively, Defendants may rely on
7
8

their brief filed in connection with the October 14, 2019 deadline to address this show

9

cause order. If Defendants’ choose to file a separate brief, Plaintiffs may reply on or

10
11

before October 28, 2019.

12

The Court will inform the parties if it believes a hearing will be helpful or is

13

needed in connection with either the extension of the Temporary Restraining Order

14
15

or the motion for Preliminary Injunction.

16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

October 4, 2019

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT
ISSUE