Integral Development Corp v. Tolat

Filing 46

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 1/10/13. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/10/2013)

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