The Logistics Guys Inc. v. Cuevas et al

Filing 105

ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/22/2024 DIRECTING the defendants to file a sur-reply by 12/6/24 addressing the new arguments and evidence presented in the 87 Motion to Hold defendants in Contempt of court. (Woodson, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

LOGISTICS GUYS INC.,

11

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

DOMINICK CUEVAS, et al.,

14

Defendants.

No. 2:23-cv-01592-DAD-CSK

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO
FILE A SUR-REPLY TO THE PENDING
MOTION TO HOLD DEFENDANTS IN
CONTEMPT OF COURT
(Doc. No. 87)

15

This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s motion seeking to have defendants held to be

16
17

in contempt of court. (Doc. No. 87.) For the reasons explained below, the court will direct

18

defendants to file a sur-reply in support of their opposition to the pending motion by no later than

19

December 6, 2024.

20

On June 13, 2024, the court issued an order granting plaintiff’s motion for preliminary

21

injunction and enjoining defendants from, among other things, conducting business with any of

22

plaintiff’s customers that defendants solicited using plaintiff’s trade secrets. (Doc. No. 54 at 23–

23

24.) On August 8, 2024, the court issued an order granting plaintiff’s request for an order

24

requiring defendants to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of court for failing

25

to comply with the terms of that preliminary injunction. (Doc. No. 68.) On August 15, 2024,

26

defendants filed four affidavits detailing their compliance with the preliminary injunction. (Doc.

27

Nos. 69–72.) In light of defendants’ affidavits, the court discharged the order to show cause on

28

/////
1

1

August 19, 2024, without prejudice to plaintiff filing a motion to hold defendants in contempt of

2

court.1 (Doc. No. 74.)

3

On September 10, 2024, plaintiff filed a motion to hold defendants in contempt of court.

4

(Doc. No. 87.) Defendants filed their oppositions to the pending motion on September 26, 2024.

5

(Doc. Nos. 92–97.) On October 7, 2024, plaintiff filed its reply thereto. (Doc. No. 99.)

6

Plaintiff raises a number of new arguments in its reply brief based on the submission of a

7

purported copy of the phone records of defendants Dominick Cuevas and Adam Nesta, produced

8

by Verizon on September 30, 2024, and AT&T on October 2, 2024 pursuant to subpoenas (“the

9

Phone Records”).2 (See Doc. Nos. 99; 104 at 1–2.) Plaintiff argues that the Phone Records

10

document defendants’ pervasive contacts with plaintiff’s customers during a time period in which

11

defendants have previously claimed not to have solicited those customers. (Doc. No. 99 at 4.) In

12

particular, plaintiff argues that while defendants have contended that plaintiff’s former customers

13

first contacted defendant Cuevas, the Phone Records appear to demonstrate that defendant Cuevas

14

called plaintiff’s customers numerous times before those customers requested his services. (Id. at

15

5.) Plaintiff further argues that defendant Cuevas called plaintiff’s former customers many times

16

“after the commencement of his suspension and before he claims to have begun competing

17

against” plaintiff. (Id.; see also id. at 6.) Plaintiff additionally contends that defendant Cuevas

18

“apparently moved loads for [plaintiff’s former customer Arbitech/Valesea] using another

19

logistics provider while still employed by” plaintiff. (Id. at 5.)

20

Next, plaintiff argues that the timing of the calls in the Phone Records demonstrates that,

21

contrary to defendants’ representations to the court, defendant Cuevas’s involvement with

22

defendant Impala Freight Inc. (“Impala Freight”) “began not in late August 2023 but rather on

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Defendants devoted nearly half of their opposition to the pending motion to arguing that the
motion is somehow one for reconsideration brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59 (see Doc. No. 93 at 7–16), despite the court clearly stating in its order issued on
August 19, 2024 that the order to show cause was discharged without prejudice to plaintiff’s
filing of the pending motion (see Doc. No. 74).
On November 20, 2024, the court issued an order granting plaintiff’s request to file the Phone
Records on the docket under seal. (Doc. No. 102.) Plaintiff did so that same day. (Doc.
No. 104.)
2
2

1

June 20, 2023 while he was suspended as” plaintiff’s employee. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff argues that

2

the Phone Records show that defendant Cuevas engaged in group calls with defendant Impala

3

Freight and plaintiff’s former customers in early August 2023, before defendants contend

4

defendant Cuevas began working for Impala Freight. (Id.) Moreover, plaintiff argues that the

5

Phone Records show that defendant Nesta participated in group calls with Cuevas and Impala

6

Freight while still employed by plaintiff. (Id.) Separately, plaintiff argues that the timing of the

7

Phone Records contradicts defendants’ contention that defendant Nesta destroyed his phone on

8

August 23, 2023, since the Phone Records purportedly show Nesta using his phone through

9

September 1, 2023. (Id. at 7; see also Doc. No. 104 at 144.) While these arguments are new, the

10

court finds them to be significant.

11

Accordingly, the court hereby directs defendants to file a sur-reply addressing the new

12

arguments and evidence presented in plaintiff’s reply, by no later than December 6, 2024. Cf.

13

Tounget v. Valley-Wide Recreation & Park Dist., No. 16-cv-00088-JGB-KK, 2020 WL 8410456,

14

at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2020) (“A decision to grant or deny leave to file a sur[-]reply is

15

generally committed to the sound discretion of the court.”) (alterations in original); Fedrick v.

16

Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 366 F. Supp. 2d 1190, 1197 (N.D. Ga. 2005) (“Although the Court

17

may in its discretion permit the filing of a surreply, this discretion should be exercised in favor of

18

allowing a surreply only where a valid reason for such additional briefing exists, such as where

19

the movant raises new arguments in its reply brief.”). In their sur-reply, defendants may only

20

address the new arguments and evidence presented for the first time in plaintiff’s reply.

21
22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 22, 2024
DALE A. DROZD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
3