Integral Development Corp v. Tolat

Filing 46


Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 INTEGRAL DEVELOPMENT CORP, 10 Plaintiff, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 9 12 13 No. C 12-06575 JSW v. VIRAL TOLAT, Defendant. / ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 14 15 Now before the Court is the ex parte application for a temporary restraining order 16 (“TRO”) and an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction and a writ of attachment 17 should not issue. In order to obtain a TRO or preliminary injunctive relief, Plaintiff Integral 18 Development Corporation (“Plaintiff”) “must establish that [it] is likely to succeed on the 19 merits, that [it] is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the 20 balance of equities tips in [its] favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. 21 Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008) (citations omitted). 22 The Winter court also noted that because injunctive relief is “an extraordinary remedy,” it “may 23 only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” 129 S.Ct. at 24 375-76 (citing Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam)). Thus “[i]n each 25 case, courts ‘must balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each 26 party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief.’” Id. at 376 (citing Amoco 27 Production Co. v. Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 542 (1987)). An ex parte application for a TRO may 28 only be granted if “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that 1 immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse 2 party can be heard in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 65(b)(1)(A). In the absence of any 3 evidence to support claims of any misappropriation or threat to disclose trade secrets, Plaintiff 4 fails to meet this standard. 5 The Court, however, does grant Plaintiff’s request for expedited, but limited, discovery. 6 Absent further stipulation of the parties and as addressed on the record at the hearing in this 7 matter, reciprocal document discovery shall be completed by no later than January 31, 2013; 8 limited depositions shall be conducted by no later than February 14, 2013; and private 9 mediation shall be completed by no later than March 14, 2013 (costs to be shared equally between the parties). The Court has referred any and all discovery disputes to a Magistrate 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Judge for resolution. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: January 10, 2013 JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?