Davis v. Integrated Project Management, Inc.

Filing 10

ORDER by Judge Samuel Conti denying 3 Motion for TRO (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/31/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 GIGI DAVIS, Plaintiff, 10 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 9 11 12 v. INTEGRATED PROJECT MANAGEMENT, INC; AND DOES 1-20, Defendants. 13 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 11-5271 SC ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 14 15 Now before the Court is Plaintiff Gigi Davis' ("Davis") 16 Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary 17 Injunction against Defendant Integrated Project Management, Inc. 18 ("IPM"). 19 challenging an allegedly illegal non-compete agreement which she 20 entered into with IPM, her former employer. 21 Davis has declared that IPM threatened to bring suit against her if 22 she breached the non-compete agreement. 23 ΒΆ 13. 24 enjoining IPM from taking any action against her in any forum other 25 than this Court. 26 there is no indication that IPM has actually brought suit against 27 Davis, it is not clear what the Court would be enjoining if it were 28 ECF No. 3 ("Appl."). Davis brought this action ECF No. 1 ("Compl."). ECF No. 6 ("Davis Decl.") Davis seeks to "preserve the status quo" by temporarily Appl. at 2; ECF No. 7 ("Proposed Order"). As 1 to grant the Appli o t ication. Accordi ingly, Pl laintiff Gigi Dav vis' 2 Ap pplicatio for Te on emporary Restrain ning Orde and Pr er reliminar ry 3 In njunction is DENI n IED as pr remature and ambi iguous in the rel n lief 4 so ought. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDE S ERED. 7 8 9 Dated Octobe 31, 20 d: er 011 UNITED ST U TATES DIS STRICT JU UDGE United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?