Richmond Technologies, Inc v. Aumtech Business Solutions et al
Filing
17
Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh denying 5 Motion for TRO without prejudice.(lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/25/2011)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN JOSE DIVISION
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
RICHMOND TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a
Georgia corporation, d/b/a ePayware,
12
Plaintiff,
v.
13
14
15
16
AUMTECH BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, an
unincorporated association; AUMTECH
ISOLUTIONS PVT. LTD, an Indian
corporation, DAMIAN JOSEPH POLITO,
JENNIFER POLITO, SHANKAR BOSE and
ILA BOSE,
17
Defendants.
18
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 11-CV-02460-LHK
ORDER DENYING EX PARTE
MOTION FOR TRO WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
19
On May 20, 2011, Plaintiff Richmond Technologies, Inc., doing business as ePayware,1
20
filed the instant action against Defendants Aumtech Business Solutions (“Aumtech America”),
21
Aumtech i-Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (“Aumtech India”), Damien Joseph Polito, Jennifer Polito, Shankar
22
Bose, and Ila Bose. Shortly thereafter, on May 23, 2011, Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for a
23
temporary restraining order (“TRO”). There is no indication that Defendants have been served
24
with the summons and complaint or given notice of Plaintiff’s motion for a TRO. Having
25
considered the arguments and declarations provided by Plaintiff, the Court finds that Plaintiff has
26
1
27
28
According to the Complaint, on October 12, 2009, Plaintiff Richmond Technologies, Inc.
acquired the assets of ePayware Inc., continued ePayware’s business, and became the successor in
interest to ePayware’s contracts, including its contracts with Defendant Aumtech India. See
Compl. ¶ 25.
1
Case No.: 11-CV-02460-LHK
ORDER DENYING EX PARTE MOTION FOR TRO WITHOUT PREJUDICE
1
not satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule 65(b) for issuance of a TRO without notice to the
2
adverse party. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s ex parte motion for a TRO without
3
prejudice. After Plaintiff serves Defendants with the summons, complaint, and all other filings in
4
this action, and files proof of service with the Court, Plaintiff may renew its motion for a TRO or
5
seek an expedited hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction
6
I. Background
7
Plaintiff ePayware is a company that provides enterprise resource planning (“ERP”)
8
software for financial service companies who provide credit card terminals to merchants. Compl. ¶
9
1. In 2007, ePayware hired Defendant Aumtech India to develop software and conduct
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
maintenance of its ERP modules. Compl. ¶ 23; Decl. of Sandeep Menon in Supp. of Pl’s Mot. for
11
TRO (“Menon Decl.”) ¶¶ 4-5 & Ex. A. On September 15, 2009, ePayware and Aumtech India also
12
entered into a Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement that included a non-compete clause,
13
as well as restrictions on interference with ePayware’s customers and solicitation of its employees.
14
Menon Decl. Ex. B. ¶¶ 4-6.
15
In its Complaint, Plaintiff ePayware alleges that, in 2010, Defendant Aumtech India
16
“hatched a plan” with former ePayware employee Jennifer Polito and her husband Joseph Damien
17
Polito to create a venture called Aumtech Business Solutions (“Aumtech America”). Compl. ¶ 4.
18
Plaintiff claims, among other things, that this venture violates the Confidentiality and Non-
19
Disclosure Agreement because it offers the same services provided by ePayware and directly
20
competes with ePayware. Compl. ¶ 4, 7, 40. Plaintiff claims, further, that Aumtech America has
21
been actively soliciting ePayware’s clients and marketing its competing services at industry trade
22
shows, in violation of the Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement. Compl. ¶¶ 7-8, 32-33.
23
After learning of these alleged breaches, ePayware terminated its software development and
24
maintenance agreement with Aumtech India. Menon Decl. ¶ 7. ePayware then demanded that
25
Aumtech India release the software source code to ePayware so that ePayware could transition its
26
software support and development to another vendor. Compl. ¶ 36. ePayware claims that it has
27
paid for the software development and maintenance provided by Aumtech India and that it needs
28
the source code in order to fulfill its obligations to its customers. Compl. ¶ 37; Menon Decl. ¶ 11.
2
Case No.: 11-CV-02460-LHK
ORDER DENYING EX PARTE MOTION FOR TRO WITHOUT PREJUDICE
1
According to ePayware, Aumtech India has refused to release the source code unless ePayware
2
first provides a payment of $20,000. Compl. ¶ 36; Menon Decl. ¶ 9. ePayware now seeks a
3
temporary restraining order that would (1) compel Defendant Aumtech India and its principals to
4
release the source code to ePayware, and (2) enjoin Defendants from competing with ePayware in
5
violation of the Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement.
6
7
II. Legal Standard
Because Plaintiff seeks issuance of a TRO without notice to the adverse parties, Plaintiff
8
must satisfy both the general standard for temporary restraining orders and the requirements for ex
9
parte orders set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b). The standard for issuing a TRO is
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
identical to the standard for issuing a preliminary injunction. Brown Jordan Int’l, Inc. v. Mind's
11
Eye Interiors, Inc., 236 F. Supp. 2d 1152, 1154 (D. Haw. 2002); Lockheed Missile & Space Co.,
12
Inc. v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 887 F. Supp. 1320, 1323 (N.D. Cal. 1995). A plaintiff seeking a
13
preliminary injunction must make a four-fold showing: (1) that he is likely to succeed on the
14
merits; (2) that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that
15
the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v.
16
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 374 (2008); Amer. Trucking Assocs., Inc.
17
v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009).
18
In addition, a plaintiff seeking issuance of a TRO without notice to the defendant must
19
satisfy two further requirements: (1) “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint [must]
20
clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before
21
the adverse party can be heard in opposition,” and (2) the applicant’s attorney must certify in
22
writing the reasons why notice should not be required. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 65(b)(1) (emphasis
23
added). The Ninth Circuit has cautioned that there are very few circumstances justifying the
24
issuance of an ex parte TRO. Reno Air Racing Assoc., Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th
25
Cir. 2006). Such circumstances include “a very narrow band of cases in which ex parte orders are
26
proper because notice to the defendant would render fruitless the further prosecution of the action.”
27
Id. (quoting Amer. Can Co. v. Mansukhani, 742 F.2d 314, 322 (7th Cir. 1984)).
28
3
Case No.: 11-CV-02460-LHK
ORDER DENYING EX PARTE MOTION FOR TRO WITHOUT PREJUDICE
1
2
III. Analysis
In this case, Plaintiff argues that an ex parte TRO should issue because Plaintiff will suffer
3
irreparable injury if Aumtech India withholds the source code and continues to violate the non-
4
compete agreement until this action is resolved. Plaintiff states that without the source code, it will
5
be unable to fulfill its obligations to its customers and thus could permanently lose both its
6
customers and the goodwill it has accumulated. Similarly, Plaintiff argues that if Aumtech
7
America is allowed to continue competing with Plaintiff and soliciting its customers during the
8
pendency of this action, Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm in the form of lost business goodwill
9
and reputation.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
The Court agrees that loss of customers, goodwill, and business reputation may constitute
11
irreparable harm in some circumstances. See Rent-A-Center, Inc. v. Canyon Television and
12
Appliance Rental, Inc., 944 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1991) (upholding issuance of preliminary
13
injunction to enforce non-compete agreement and finding that “intangible injuries” to advertising
14
efforts and goodwill can constitute irreparable harm). In this instance, however, Plaintiff has failed
15
to “clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant
16
before the adverse party can be heard in opposition,” as required for issuance of an ex parte TRO.
17
Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 65(b)(1) (emphasis added). In its brief and declarations, Plaintiff states that it
18
will suffer irreparable injury “if Aumtech India withholds the source code until resolution of this
19
action” or if it receives a damages award for breach of the non-compete agreement “a year or two
20
from now.” TRO Mot. at 4, 7; see also Menon Decl. ¶ 12 (“Waiting until the resolution of this
21
action to receive the source code would cause irreparable harm to ePayware’s business”).
22
However, Plaintiff fails to set forth any facts suggesting that it is likely to face immediate
23
irreparable harm before Defendants could be heard in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff has
24
not alleged that Defendants cannot be located in time for a hearing, that Defendants are likely to
25
destroy the source code if given notice, or otherwise suggested that it is likely to suffer irreparable
26
injury if consideration of preliminary relief is postponed slightly in order to provide Defendants an
27
opportunity to be heard. See Reno Air Racing Assoc., 452 F.3d at 1131 (suggesting that issuance of
28
an ex parte TRO may be appropriate where the adverse party cannot be located in time for a
4
Case No.: 11-CV-02460-LHK
ORDER DENYING EX PARTE MOTION FOR TRO WITHOUT PREJUDICE
1
hearing or where an infringer is likely to dispose of infringing goods before a hearing). Plaintiff’s
2
attorney also has not “certif[ied] in writing the reasons why notice should not be required,” as
3
mandated by Rule 65(b). Indeed Plaintiff has not addressed why a TRO should issue without
4
notice to Defendants.
5
Preliminary injunctive relief is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a
6
clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter, 129 S.Ct. at 376. Where a
7
plaintiff seeks such relief without notice to the adverse party, he should be able to show that notice
8
would result in immediate, irreparable harm such that notice would “render fruitless the further
9
prosecution of the action.” Reno Air Racing Assoc., Inc., 452 F.3d at 1131. In this case, Plaintiff
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
has not complied with the requirements of Rule 65(b) and has not argued that it will face
11
immediate, irreparable injury if Defendant is advised of Plaintiff’s application for a TRO and
12
provided an opportunity to be heard. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that issuance of
13
an ex parte TRO is warranted, and the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s ex parte motion for a temporary
14
restraining order.
15
16
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for an ex parte
17
TRO without prejudice. Accordingly, after Plaintiff serves Defendants with the summons,
18
complaint, and all other filings in this action, and files proof of service with the Court, Plaintiff
19
may renew its motion for a TRO. However, if Plaintiff chooses instead to file a motion for a
20
preliminary injunction, the Court finds that Plaintiff has made a sufficiently strong showing to
21
warrant an expedited hearing on such a motion.
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
23
Dated: May 25, 2011
_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge
24
25
26
27
28
5
Case No.: 11-CV-02460-LHK
ORDER DENYING EX PARTE MOTION FOR TRO WITHOUT PREJUDICE
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?