California Lacrosse, Inc. v. Lacrosse Unlimited, Inc.

Filing 38

ORDER Denying 24 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The hearing scheduled for 5/4/2017 is therefore Vacated. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 4/21/2017. (rlu)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CALIFORNIA LACROSSE, INC.,

Case No.: 16-CV-2111-CAB-JLB

Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

LACROSSE UNLIMITED, INC.,
Defendant.

15
16
17

[Doc. No. 24]

LACROSSE UNLIMITED, INC.,

18

Counter Claimant,

19

v.

20

CALIFORNIA LACROSSE, INC.,

21

Counter Defendant.

22
23

This matter is before the Court on a motion for preliminary injunction filed by

24

Defendant/Counter Claimant Lacrosse Unlimited, Inc. (“LUI”). The motion has been fully

25

briefed, and the Court deems it suitable for submission without oral argument. For the

26

following reasons, the motion is denied.

27
28
1
16-CV-2111-CAB-JLB

1

I.

2

Adrenaline Lacrosse, Inc. (“ALI”) manufactures the Adrenaline brand of lacrosse

3

apparel. Until 2014, ALI’s subsidiary, Plaintiff/Counter Defendant California Lacrosse,

4

Inc. (“CLI”), sold Adrenaline apparel at eight brick and mortar retail stores called “South

5

Swell Sports” in California and Texas (the “Stores”), and through a website with the same

6

name. In September 2014, CLI and LUI entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement

7

(“APA”) pursuant to which CLI agreed to sell and LUI agreed to purchase: (1) physical

8

assets and customer contracts associated with the Stores; (2) CLI’s internet-based lacrosse

9

retail sales business (“Internet Sales”); and (3) CLI’s operations for retail sales made

10

Background

directly to lacrosse teams and organizations (“Team Sales”). [Doc. No. 25-1.]

11

In exchange for these assets, LUI agreed to the following:

12

1. To pay CLI a “fixed cash price” of $312,281;

13

2. To pay CLI quarterly royalties on revenues from the Team Sales transferred

14

under the APA equal to: (a) 10% with a minimum of $225,000 in the first year

15

following the closing date (“Year One”); (b) 7.5% with a minimum of $150,000

16

in the second year (“Year Two”); and (c) 5% with a minimum of $125,000 in the

17

third year (“Year Three”).

18

3. To purchase $800,000 in Adrenaline apparel over the three years following close

19

of the APA, including at least $200,000 in Year One, $300,000 in Year Two, and

20

$300,000 in Year Three.

21

4. To purchase, in addition to the Adrenaline apparel, $300,000 in “Team Apparel,”

22

defined as “apparel and product that is purchased in high volume for use by

23

lacrosse teams and drop shipped by a team dealer from a vendor directly to a team

24

customer and generally sold from stock inventory not store inventory.” [Id. at

25

10.]

26

The APA also required LUI to provide CLI with quarterly reports of its Team Sales

27

Revenues and, with 60 days notice, to provide CLI with access to LUI’s books and records

28

to verify the accuracy of these reports. In addition, the APA included a non-competition
2
16-CV-2111-CAB-JLB

1

provision pursuant to which CLI agreed not to operate brick and mortar retail lacrosse

2

stores within thirty miles of the Stores and not to make any Team Sales directly to

3

customers for three years after the closing date. [Id. at 21.] The APA contains an attorney’s

4

fee provision, and states that it is governed by Delaware law. [Id. at 22.]

5

On August 19, 2016, CLI filed the complaint in this lawsuit. According to the

6

complaint: (a) LUI made quarterly royalty payments totaling $139,774 for the first two

7

quarters following closing, but has made no payments since April 2015; (b) LUI has not

8

provided quarterly reports since July 2015; (c) LUI’s retail and Team Apparel purchases

9

have not satisfied the APA’s minimum requirements; and (d) LUI has represented that it

10

does not intend to comply with its continuing obligations under the APA. Based on these

11

allegations, the complaint asserted claims for: (1) breach of contract; (2) specific

12

performance; (3) accounting; (4) conversion; and (5) declaratory relief.

13

In its answer, filed on November 7, 2016, LUI admitted that it has not made any

14

royalty payments aside from the $139,774 alleged in the complaint and that it has not

15

provided quarterly reports since July 2015. LUI also asserted a counterclaim alleging that:

16

(a) CLI fraudulently induced LUI to enter into the APA by making false statements about

17

CLI’s revenue from Team Sales; (b) CLI breached the non-compete provision by

18

conducting Team Sales; and (c) CLI was late in delivering one of LUI’s orders in the fall

19

of 2014. Based on these allegations, LUI asserted the following claims against CLI: (1)

20

fraudulent inducement; (2) breach of contract related to the non-compete provision; (3)

21

breach of contract related to the delayed delivery of one of LUI’s orders; (4) account stated

22

based on $41,000 in goods that LUI alleged delivered to CLI but CLI did not pay for; and

23

(5) indemnification for failing to transfer the value of the Team Sales business promised in

24

the APA. Notably, in light of the instant motion, the counterclaim sought a determination

25

that the APA is void, but did not ask for injunctive relief to prevent CLI from violating the

26

non-compete provision in the APA.

27

Meanwhile, on October 31, 2016, LUI had filed its own lawsuit against CLI in New

28

York state court (the “New York Action”). LUI’s complaint in the New York Action was
3
16-CV-2111-CAB-JLB

1

substantively identical to its counterclaim here. On December 2, 2016, CLI removed the

2

New York Action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

3

On December 23, 2016, LUI filed an amended complaint and a motion for a preliminary

4

injunction in the New York Action. The amended complaint added a claim for breach of

5

contract arising out of CLI’s alleged breach of the APA because only 200 of the 649 Team

6

Sales accounts transferred to LUI pursuant to the APA resulted in sales with LUI after the

7

acquisition. [Doc. No. 11 in Case No. 17cv229.] In the accompanying motion, LUI sought

8

a preliminary injunction precluding CLI from violating the non-compete provision in the

9

APA. [Doc. No. 13 in Case No. 17cv229.]

10

The day before LUI moved for a preliminary injunction in the New York Action,

11

CLI had filed a motion to transfer venue of the New York Action to this Court. [Doc. No.

12

10 in Case No. 17cv229.] The New York district court stayed briefing on LUI’s motion

13

for preliminary injunction until the motion to transfer was decided, and ultimately granted

14

CLI’s motion, so CLI never filed an opposition to the motion in the New York district

15

court. On February 3, 2017, the New York Action was transferred to this Court and

16

assigned to the undersigned.

17

consolidated the New York Action [S.D. Cal. Case No. 17cv229] with this action and gave

18

LUI leave to file a amended counterclaim in this action to add the breach of contract claim

19

it had added in the amended complaint in the New York Action. The consolidation order

20

also set a briefing schedule for LUI to file a motion for preliminary injunction.

After a status conference with the parties, this Court

21

Consistent with this Court’s consolidation order, LUI filed the instant motion for

22

preliminary injunction on February 28, 2017. The motion is substantively similar to the

23

motion LUI had filed in the New York Action in that it asks for an order enjoining CLI

24

from violating the non-compete provision in the APA.

25

II.

26

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.

27

Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 9, 24 (2008). Injunctive relief may

28

only be granted upon a showing of “irreparable injury and the inadequacy of legal

Analysis

4
16-CV-2111-CAB-JLB

1

remedies.” Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 312 (1982); Stanley v. Univ. of

2

So. Calif., 13 F.3d 1313, 1320 (9th Cir. 1994). For party to prevail on a motion for

3

preliminary injunction, therefore, it must demonstrate that: “(1) it is likely to succeed on

4

the merits of its claim, (2) it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary

5

relief, (3) the balance of hardships tips in its favor, and (4) a preliminary injunction is in

6

the public interest.” Int’l Franchise Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 803 F.3d 389, 399 (9th

7

Cir. 2015) (citing Winter, 555 U.S. at 20). LUI has failed to satisfy any of these

8

requirements.

9

A.

Likelihood of Success on the Merits

10

While a moving party must meet all four elements set forth by Winter, with respect

11

to demonstrating the likelihood of success on the merits, a preliminary injunction is

12

appropriate if the moving party can show “that serious questions going to the merits were

13

raised and the balance of hardship tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor.” Alliance for the

14

Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Lands Council v.

15

McNair, 537 F.3d 981, 987 (9th Cir. 2008)). Here, LUI argues that it has a likelihood of

16

success on the merits (or that serious questions on the merits exist) because CLI admitted

17

in its answer to the counterclaim that it had made some Team Sales. In response, CLI

18

acknowledges that it made Team Sales, but states that it only began doing so in 2016, a

19

year after LUI had stopped performing under the APA. LUI, in turn, counters that it

20

stopped performing on the APA because CLI had breached first by failing to transfer Team

21

Sales Accounts as agreed.

22

The record before the Court hardly portends a likelihood of success by LUI on the

23

merits of its breach of the non-compete claim. First, LUI’s counterclaim asks for the APA

24

to be declared void, in which case there would be no non-compete to enforce. Second,

25

regardless of which party breached first, it appears undisputed that no later than mid-2015,

26

LUI had stopped performing under the APA. Third, LUI offers no evidence disputing that

27

CLI’s statement that it did not make any Team Sales until 2016, long after LUI had stopped

28

performing. Fourth, LUI offers no authority for the proposition that LUI could stop
5
16-CV-2111-CAB-JLB

1

performing under the APA but still hold CLI to its continuing obligations under the APA,

2

regardless of who breached first.

3

Finally, the Court is not persuaded that LUI’s failure to achieve the same level of

4

sales from the Team Accounts transferred in the APA demonstrates that CLI somehow

5

breached the agreement. LUI’s only evidence that CLI did not achieve the level of pre-

6

acquisition Team Sales it represented to LUI is LUI’s inability to generate the same level

7

of sales after the acquisition. However, LUI does not point to any guarantees in the APA

8

or explain why CLI should be held in breach because third parties chose not to purchase

9

products from LUI. Indeed, LUI’s argument seemingly defies logic because it was in CLI’s

10

interest for LUI to achieve success in Team Sales in light of the royalty payments required

11

under the APA – higher Team Sales by LUI would result in higher royalties to CLI.1

12

Accordingly, if anything, based on the information before the Court at this time, the

13

party with a greater likelihood of success here is CLI. In any event, LUI has not raised any

14

serious questions on the merits. Moreover, as discussed below, the equities do not tip in

15

LUI’s favor.

16

B.

Irreparable Harm

17

It is well established that monetary injury is not “irreparable harm.” Los Angeles

18

Memorial Coliseum Comm’n v. NFL, 634 F.2d 1197, 1202 (9th Cir. 1980) (citing Sampson

19

v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 88 (1974)). The fact that adequate compensatory damages will be

20

available in the ordinary course of litigation weighs heavily against a claim of “irreparable”

21

harm. Sampson, 415 U.S. at 90. Moreover, delay in seeking a preliminary injunction

22

weighs against a finding of irreparable harm. See Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733,

23
24
25
26
27
28

Moreover, LUI’s estimate that CLI’s purported misrepresentations resulted in millions of dollars of
damage to LUI is difficult to reconcile with the fact that LUI only paid up front a little over $300,000 total
for these accounts along with the other assets transferred in the APA. The purchase price and structure of
payments by LUI undercuts LUI’s claims as to purported misrepresentations by CLI. LUI’s failure to
anticipate how many of these third party customers would agree to do business with LUI instead of CLI
after close of the APA does not constitute a breach or misrepresentation by CLI or mean that CLI did not
“transfer” these accounts.
1

6
16-CV-2111-CAB-JLB

1

746 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding a

2

months long delay in seeking an injunction undercut her claim of irreparable harm);

3

Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Publ’g Co., 762 F.2d 1374, 1377 (9th Cir. 1985)

4

(“Plaintiff’s long delay before seeking a preliminary injunction implies a lack of urgency

5

and irreparable harm.”); Lydo Enters., Inc. v. City of Las Vegas, 745 F.2d 1211, 1213 (9th

6

Cir. 1984) (“A delay in seeking a preliminary injunction is a factor to be considered in

7

weighing the propriety of relief”).

8

Here, LUI did not initiate this litigation and, despite knowledge of CLI’s alleged

9

breaches of the non-compete provision of the APA, waited months to seek a preliminary

10

injunction. Indeed, there is no indication that LUI would have sought injunctive relief had

11

CLI not filed this lawsuit. This delay alone weighs heavily against a finding of irreparable

12

harm. More importantly, LUI fails to demonstrate why monetary damages would be

13

inadequate. LUI claims that it will suffer harm to its goodwill but does not explain why

14

CLI selling lacrosse apparel manufactured by CLI’s parent company would harm LUI’s

15

goodwill (as opposed to simply losing that revenue). In reality, any damages LUI suffers

16

as a result of such sales, to the extent they violate the APA, could be compensated by

17

monetary damages equal to LUI’s lost profits or CLI’s profits if LUI can prove that but for

18

CLI’s Team Sales, LUI would have won that business.2 Accordingly, LUI would not suffer

19

irreparable harm in the absence a preliminary injunction.

20

C.

Balance of the Equities

21

Aside from simply stating that the balance of the equities is in its favor, LUI largely

22

ignores this element in its motion. This is likely because LUI stopped making required

23

payments shortly after the APA closed, and the CLI Team Sales that LUI contends violate

24

the non-compete occurred long after LUI stopped performing. Equity does not support

25
26
27
28

Indeed, LUI effectively admits in its motion that its damages are monetary, arguing that CLI’s “continued
competition postclosing impaired [LUI’s] ability to transfer all of the accounts, which could result in
damages of as much as approximately $2.5 million per year.” [Doc. No. 24-1 at 15.]
2

7
16-CV-2111-CAB-JLB

1

enforcing a provision of the APA that is favorable to LUI while ignoring LUI’s undisputed

2

failure to perform its obligations under the APA. Moreover, although LUI now claims that

3

CLI breached the APA causing LUI damage, LUI took no action to enforce the APA until

4

CLI sued first and offers no evidence that it ever would have made the claims it makes here

5

if CLI had not sued first. These facts do not support a finding that the equities tip in favor

6

of LUI.

7

D.

Public Interest

8

Where, as here, an injunction’s reach is narrow and affects only the parties without

9

impacting non-parties, “the public interest will be at most a neutral factor in the analysis

10

rather than one that favors granting or denying the preliminary injunction.” Stormans, Inc.

11

v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1139 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotes and brackets omitted).

12

Accordingly, this factor does not weigh in favor of granting or denying LUI’s motion.

13

III.

14

For the foregoing reasons, LUI’s motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED.

15
16
17

Conclusion

The hearing scheduled for May 4, 2017 is therefore VACATED.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 21, 2017

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
16-CV-2111-CAB-JLB