Interim Healthcare, Inc. v. Durbin et al

Filing 40

ORDER HOLDING IN ABEYANCE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. Granting 34 EXPEDITED MOTION to Hold in Abeyance Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction; Approving 31 MOTION for Judicial Notice; Approving 39 Second MOT ION for Judicial Notice re 32 MOTION to Stay Proceeding Under the Colorado River Abstention Doctrine, and Notice of Supplement; Held In Abeyance re 9 Plaintiff's MOTION for Preliminary Injunction With Incorporated Memorandum of Law Signed by Judge Beth Bloom on 3/23/2022. See attached document for full details. (ail) Modified text on 3/24/2022 (wc).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 21-cv-62561-BLOOM/Valle
INTERIM HEALTHCARE, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
J. BRANDON DURBIN,
JAMES BULLARD,
JENNIFER BULLARD,
FALCON HEALTHCARE, INC.,
INTERIM HEALTHCARE OF WEST TEXAS, LLC,
CAPITAL HOMECARE LP,
CENTRAL TEXAS HOMECARE, LLC, and
NEW MEXICO HEALTHCARE SERVICES, LLC,
Defendants.
___________________________________________/
ORDER HOLDING IN ABEYANCE
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendants J. Brandon Durbin (“Durbin”), Falcon
Healthcare, Inc., Interim Healthcare of West Texas, LLC, Capital Homecare LP, Central Texas
Homecare, LLC, and New Mexico Healthcare Services, LLC’s (collectively, “Defendants”)
Expedited Motion to Hold in Abeyance Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No.
[34] (“Motion”), filed on March 18, 2022. In the Motion, Defendants request that the Court hold
in abeyance Plaintiff Interim Healthcare, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Interim”) Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction, ECF No. [9] (“Motion for PI”), and suspend the briefing deadlines and any hearing for
the Motion for PI pending (1) the Court’s resolution of Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceeding
Under the Colorado River Abstention Doctrine, ECF No. [32] (“Motion to Stay”), and (2) the
resolution of an application for a temporary injunction in a parallel proceeding in Texas. Plaintiff

Case No. 21-cv-62561-BLOOM/Valle
filed a Response in Opposition, ECF No. [38] (“Response”).1 The Court has carefully reviewed
the Motion, the record in this case, the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the
reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted.
I.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff initiated this action on December 23, 2021, claiming a purported breach of several
franchise agreements between Plaintiff and Defendants. See ECF No. [1] (“Complaint”). On
January 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for PI, seeking to enjoin Defendants from breaching the
franchise agreements and preventing Plaintiff from exercising its “step-in” rights. See ECF No. [9]
at 2. The parties are also involved in two overlapping proceedings in Texas. See Bullard et al. v.
Durbin et al., No. DC-2021-CV-00440 (Tex. 99th DC 2021) (“First Texas Action”); Falcon
Healthcare, Inc. et al. v. Bullard et al., No. DC-2022-CV-0087 (Tex. 237th DC 2022) (“Second
Texas Action”). In the Second Texas Action, the Texas court granted a temporary restraining order
(“TRO”) against Plaintiff, see ECF No. [31-9], and Falcon and Falcon-affiliated entities
(collectively, “Falcon”) are seeking an injunction to prevent Plaintiff from exercising its “step-in”
rights, see ECF No. [31-10]. On January 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Emergency Motion requesting
this Court enjoin some of the Defendants and other non-parties to this case from: “1. Pursuing the
Texas Action; 2. Commencing any other lawsuits against Interim on any issue related to the
Franchise Agreements and Interim’s step-in rights; and 3. Such other and further preliminary relief
as this Court deems appropriate.” ECF No. [22] at 9-10. The Court denied the Emergency Motion.
See ECF No. [23]. The parties then filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Mediation, ECF
No. [28], requesting a stay until March 4, 2022, which the Court granted, ECF No. [29].

1

Defendants James Bullard and Jennifer Bullard do not take a position on the relief requested in the instant
Motion. See ECF No. [34] at 12.

2

Case No. 21-cv-62561-BLOOM/Valle
Upon the expiration of the stay, Defendants filed the second Motion to Stay. See ECF No.
[32]. As it stands, Defendants’ deadline to respond to the Amended Complaint and the Motion for
PI is March 24, 2022. See ECF No. [29]. Plaintiff’s deadline to respond to the Motion to Stay is
March 28, 2022. See ECF No. [32]. In the instant Motion, Defendants request that the Court hold
in abeyance Plaintiff’s Motion for PI and suspend the briefing deadlines and any hearing for the
Motion for PI pending the Court’s resolution of the Motion to Stay and the resolution of Falcon’s
application for a temporary injunction in the parallel proceeding in Texas.
II.

LEGAL STANDARD

The Eleventh Circuit has stated that district courts have the inherent authority to manage
their own docket to ensure “the orderly and expeditious disposition of [their] cases.” Equity
Lifestyle Prop., Inc. v. Fla. Mowing & Landscape Servs., Inc., 556 F.3d 1232, 1240 (11th Cir.
2009) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). This inherent authority includes the ability
to set deadlines on matters pending before the courts. See Smith v. Psychiatric Solutions, Inc., 750
F.3d 1253, 1262 (11th Cir. 2014).
III.

DISCUSSION

In the instant Motion, Defendants request that the Court hold in abeyance the Motion for
PI and suspend the briefing deadlines and any hearing pertaining to the Motion for PI. See ECF
No. [34]. Defendants argue that holding the Motion for PI in abeyance will prevent duplicative
litigation and eliminate the risk of conflicting rulings between this Court and the Texas court.
Defendant also avers that Plaintiff’s rights will not be compromised by the temporary abeyance of
the Motion for PI. See id. at 6-8. Plaintiff opposes the requested abeyance. See ECF No. [38].
Plaintiff argues that the Court can and should permit the parties to complete the briefing for the
Motion for PI and the Motion to Stay, and Plaintiff’s rights will be compromised by an indefinite
abeyance of the Motion for PI. See id. at 2. Plaintiff also submits that if the Texas court denies
3

Case No. 21-cv-62561-BLOOM/Valle
Falcon’s request for injunctive relief, there will be no possibility of this Court issuing a conflicting
injunction, and allowing the Motion for PI to be fully briefed will allow the Court to address the
Motion for PI by the time the Texas court resolves Falcon’s application for injunctive relief. See
id.
The Court agrees with Defendants. As Defendants rightly argue, the requested abeyance
will eliminate the need for duplicative litigation arising from two conflicting applications for
injunctive relief before this Court and the Texas court. See ECF No. [34] at 6. In addition, an
abeyance will prevent any possibility of conflicting rulings between this Court and the Texas court
by allowing the Texas court to rule on Falcon’s pending application for injunctive relief. See id. at
7. Plaintiff’s argument that its rights will be compromised by an “indefinite abeyance,” ECF No.
[38] at 2, is unpersuasive since the requested abeyance will expire upon this Court’s resolution of
Defendants’ Motion to Stay, which is forthcoming, and the Texas court’s resolution of Falcon’s
application for a temporary injunction, which is set for a hearing on April 4 and 5, 2022. The length
of the abeyance, therefore, is not indefinite.
Further, Plaintiff fails to persuade the Court that the abeyance will result in “irreparable”
harm since the abeyance will be relatively short. See ECF No. [38] at 6-7. The purported need to
resolve the Motion for PI expeditiously and thereby enjoin Defendants from preventing Plaintiff’s
exercise of its “step-in” rights is tempered by the fact that the Texas court has already entered a
TRO that prevents Plaintiff from exercising its “step-in” rights. See ECF No. [31-9]. A such, even
if this Court were to grant the Motion for PI, Plaintiff would not be able to exercise its “step-in”
rights as a result of the conflicting TRO. See ECF No. [34] at 4. In other words, addressing the
Motion for PI in Plaintiff’s favor will not cure any alleged irreparable harm to Plaintiff. The Court
already acknowledged this possibility in its prior Order on Emergency Motion. See ECF No. [23]
at 3 n.1. Finally, as Defendants rightly argue, Plaintiff’s claim of irreparable harm is unpersuasive
4

Case No. 21-cv-62561-BLOOM/Valle
given Plaintiff’s “willing[ness] to stipulate to the extension of the TRO [in Texas],” ECF No. [34]
at 8, which suggests that whatever harm Plaintiff will suffer from temporarily being unable to
exercise its “step-in” rights is not irreparable.2
In addition, Plaintiff’s reliance on two non-binding cases from outside the Eleventh Circuit,
P&G v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., 549 F. 3d 842 (Fed. Cir. 2008), and NIDEC Corp. v. LG Innotek
Co., Ltd, 2009 WL 3673433 (E.D. Texas, April 3, 2009), to argue that it will suffer irreparable
harm is unavailing. See ECF No. [38] at 7. As Plaintiff notes, in P&G, the Federal Circuit found
that the district court abused its discretion by imposing a stay that effectively denied the
preliminary injunction motion without considering the merits of the motion. 549 F. 3d at 850. In
this case, the Court is not imposing a stay that effectively denies the Motion for PI. The Court is
instead holding the Motion for PI in abeyance for a short period of time due to the conflicting
application for injunctive relief in the parallel case, which does not constitute an effective denial
of the Motion for PI. In NIDEC Corp., the court determined that a stay could cause irreparable
harm to the plaintiff that could not be remedied by money damages. See 2009 WL 3673433, at *4.
In this case, as discussed above, even if the Court were to not hold the Motion for PI in abeyance
and grant the Motion for PI, Plaintiff could not exercise its “step-in” rights given the existing TRO
issued by the Texas court. As such, practically speaking, there is no irreparable harm that ensues
from holding the Motion for PI in abeyance.
Also, Plaintiff’s argument that the Court should not hold the Motion for PI in abeyance
because the Texas court’s order on Falcon’s pending application for injunctive relief is

2

Plaintiff does not dispute that it agreed to an extension of the TRO. To the extent that Plaintiff argues that
“step-in” rights are not what Plaintiff alleges will be irreparably harmed, the argument is inapposite. See
ECF No. [38] at 6-7. As Plaintiff rightly notes, “step-in” rights are the “tool” that allows Plaintiff to protect
its trademarks, trade secrets, and goodwill that will allegedly be irreparably harmed. Id. at 6. The ability to
exercise “step-in” rights, therefore, is inextricably intertwined with whatever irreparable harm Plaintiff will
allegedly suffer. Plaintiff’s willingness to forego the exercise of its “step-in” rights by stipulating to an
extension of the TRO suggests that Plaintiff will not suffer irreparable harm in the short-term.

5

Case No. 21-cv-62561-BLOOM/Valle
forthcoming and will be in its favor is unpersuasive. See ECF No. [38] at 6, 7. Following Plaintiff’s
logic, the Texas court will deny Falcon’s pending application for injunctive relief and this Court
will not be faced with the possibility of issuing conflicting injunctive relief. See id. at 6. Further,
the Texas court will resolve Falcon’s application for injunctive relief by the time the Motion for
PI is fully briefed. See id. As such, Plaintiff submits that the Court should allow the Motion for PI
to be fully briefed so that this Court will be able to expeditiously address the Motion for PI by the
time the Texas court denies Falcon’s application for injunctive relief. See id. However, the Court
declines to presume that the Texas court will decide the application for injunctive relief in
Plaintiff’s favor. Requiring the parties to expend resources to resolve the Motion for PI when the
Texas court could grant injunctive relief and thereby foreclose this Court from granting conflicting
injunctive relief would not be an efficient use of the parties’ resources.
IV.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1.

The Motion, ECF No. [34], is GRANTED.

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. [9], is held in abeyance
pending (1) the Court’s resolution of Defendants’ Motion to Stay, ECF No. [32],
and (2) the Texas court’s resolution of Falcon’s application for a temporary
injunction.

3.

Any briefing deadlines and hearings regarding Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary
Injunction, ECF No. [9], are CANCELED.

4.

Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice, ECF No. [31], and Notice of Supplement
and Second Request for Judicial Notice, ECF No. [39], are APPROVED.

5.

All other deadlines remain in place.

6

Case No. 21-cv-62561-BLOOM/Valle
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on March 23, 2022.

_________________________________
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Counsel of Record

7