SGI Resort Properties, LLC et al v. Rosselli et al

Filing 15

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 1/11/2016 GRANTING plaintiffs' 5 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13

SGI RESORT PROPERTIES, LLC,
an Arizona limited liability
company; and THE SCHOMAC
GROUP, INC., an Arizona
corporation,

14

Plaintiffs,

15
16
17

No.

2:15-cv-02644-JAM-CMK

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION

v.
BRETT ROSSELLI, an
individual; NICOLE BRUSO, an
individual; and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive,

18
Defendants.
19
Plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order

20
21

on December 31, 2015 (Doc. #5). 1

22

motion for a temporary restraining order and set a hearing to

23

determine whether to grant Plaintiffs a preliminary injunction

24

(Doc. #7).

25

#11).

The Court denied Plaintiff’s

Defendants filed a notice of non-opposition (Doc.

Defendants indicated that they “have no opposition to the

26
27
28

1

This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was
scheduled for January 12, 2016.
1

1

entry of the Proposed Order submitted by the Plaintiffs.”

2

of Non-Opposition at 1-2.

3

“reserve all of their rights to oppose Plaintiffs’ Application

4

for the Restraining Order and Injunction.”

5

230(c), however, states that “[n]o party will be entitled to be

6

heard in opposition to a motion at oral arguments if opposition

7

to the motion has not been timely filed by that party.”

8

Rule 230.

9

cannot oppose the motion via oral argument at a hearing.

Notice

Defendants also indicated that they

Id. at 2.

Local Rule

Local

Because Defendants did not oppose the motion, they
Thus,

10

the Court submitted the matter without argument (Doc. #14).

11

Defendants indicated that they do not oppose the entry of

12

Plaintiffs’ proposed order, thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’

13

motion for preliminary injunction consistent with the proposed

14

order.

15

IT IS ORDERED THAT Defendants Brett Rosselli and Nicole

16

Bruso, and their agents, representatives, and all persons acting

17

in concert or participating with them are restrained and enjoined

18

from engaging in or performing directly or indirectly any and all

19

of the following acts during the pendency of this action:

20

1.

Publishing, whether verbal or written, to any third-

21

party any disparaging and/or otherwise defamatory, false

22

statements regarding the business reputation of Plaintiffs’;

23

their business at issue in this litigation, Nakoma Golf Resort &

24

Spa (“Nakoma”); Nakoma’s employees and management; and Dan

25

Gallagher.

26

2.

Utilizing, disseminating, using, copying, transmitting,

27

or publishing any of Plaintiffs’ and Nakoma’s “Confidential

28

Business Information” and/or trade secrets, including without
2

1

limitation, pricing information, cost of materials information,

2

strategic and marketing plans, financial management information,

3

operating policies, vendor files with information including

4

vendor contact information, vendor ordering needs and

5

requirements, and other business procedures customized for its

6

operation as a popular gold resort and spa and special event

7

hosting location.

8
9

3.

Interfering with the existing or prospective business

relationships and contracts of Nakoma and/or Plaintiffs.

10

4.

11

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS

12
13
14

Plaintiffs are not required to post bond.

Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction:
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 11, 2016

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3