Bestway (USA), Inc. et al v. SGROMO et al

Filing 147

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING 138 MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/10/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

BESTWAY (USA), INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10
11

v.
PIETRO PASQUALE-ANTONI SGROMO,
et al.,

Case No. 17-cv-00205-HSG
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Re: Dkt. No. 138

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

Defendants and Cross-Claimants Leonard Gregory Scott and Eureka Inventions LLC

14

brought this motion on March 27, 2019, seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary

15

injunction to prohibit Defendant Pietro Pasquale-Antoni Sgromo “and his related entities from

16

prosecuting the patent matter recently filed in . . . the Eastern District of Texas . . . captioned

17

Pietro Pasquale Antonio Sgromo (a/k/a Peter Anthony Sgromo), et al. v. Bestway Enterprise Co.

18

Ltd., et al., No. 2:19-cv-60-JRG.” See Dkt. No. 138 (“Mot.”) at 1. This is the third time that Scott

19

and Eureka have run to this Court attempting to prevent Sgromo from pursuing his claims in other

20

forums. See Dkt. Nos. 119, 130. According to Scott and Eureka, a temporary restraining order

21

and preliminary injunction are necessary this time around because “Sgromo is seeking to

22

effectively relitigate the same issues” that were resolved by this Court and an arbitrator. Id. at 3;

23

see also Dkt. No. 138-8 (Sgromo’s amended complaint in Eastern District of Texas). Rather than

24

filing an opposition brief addressing the merits of this motion, Sgromo submitted what he deemed

25

an “informal response.” See Dkt. No. 141.

26

A temporary restraining order is an “extraordinary remedy” that the court should award

27

only upon a clear showing that the party is entitled to such relief. See Winter v. Natural Res. Def.

28

Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). A temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction may

1

be issued only where the moving party has established: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits;

2

(2) a likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities

3

tips in the movant’s favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. See id. at 22.
Scott and Eureka have not established that they will be irreparably harmed if Sgromo is not

4
5

enjoined from prosecuting his suit in the Eastern District of Texas. They argue that they will be

6

forced to spend money defending against Sgromo’s suit in this new jurisdiction and face the

7

possibility of “inconsistent and/or contradictory rulings.” See Mot. at 10–11. Scott and Eureka

8

cite to the Ninth Circuit’s unpublished decision in Jones v. Mendocino County as supporting their

9

position. See Mot. at 11. However, in affirming the entry of an injunction against a vexatious
litigant who had filed fifteen prior lawsuits, the Ninth Circuit in Jones confirmed the general rule:

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

that “litigiousness alone is no reason to enjoin future litigation” and that injunctions against the

12

filing of related lawsuits in federal courts “are generally unnecessary, as res judicata and collateral

13

estoppel are usually more than adequate to protect defendants against repetitious litigation.” See

14

895 F.2d 1417 (9th Cir. 1990) (internal quotation omitted).
The Court does not see a reason to diverge from that general rule at this time. Because the

15
16

“doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata ordinarily provide adequate assurance that one

17

court’s resolution of a controversy will be respected by other courts,” Wood v. Santa Barbara

18

Chamber of Commerce, Inc., 705 F.2d 1515, 1524 (9th Cir. 1983), there will not be any

19

irreparable harm absent the entry of a restraining order or preliminary injunction. Scott and

20

Eureka should present their relitigation arguments to the court in the Eastern District of Texas. If

21

they are correct that Sgromo is merely attempting to relitigate issues that have already been

22

decided by this Court, then that action will be barred by res judicata, with little expense incurred.

23

See, e.g., Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 892 (2008) (explaining mechanics and policy of claim

24

preclusion and issue preclusion, “which are collectively referred to as ‘res judicata’”).

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

//
2

1

Because Scott and Eureka cannot establish irreparable harm, the Court need not discuss the

2

other Winter factors and the motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction is

3

DENIED.

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 4/10/2019
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3