PINNACLE AGRICULTURE DISTRIBUTION INC v. MAYO FERTILIZER INC et al

Filing 45

ORDER granting 4 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE LESLIE J ABRAMS on 3/6/2017. (bcl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ALBANY DIVISION
PINNACLE AGRICULTURE
DISTRIBUTION, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
MAYO FERTILIZER, INC.; JEFF
BRADLEY; and JASON BRADLEY,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO.: 1:17-CV-29 (LJA)

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Pinnacle Agriculture Distribution, Inc.’s (“Pinnacle”)
Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 4), in which Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants
Mayo Fertilizer (“Mayo”), Jeff Bradley, and Jason Bradley (Jeff and Jason Bradley,
collectively are referred to hereafter as “The Bradleys”) from using any confidential
information and trade secrets belonging to Plaintiff and to cease doing business with any
customer or supplier acquired through the use of such confidential information and trade
secrets. The Court previously granted Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order
on February 7, 2017 (Doc. 12); and, on February 22, 2017, the Court held a hearing on
Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Based on the testimony and evidence
presented therein, the Court made a finding of good cause to extend the Temporary
Restraining Order for an additional fourteen days while the Court addressed Plaintiff’s
Motion for Preliminary Injunction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2). As set forth more fully
below, the Court finds that Plaintiff has met its burden as to each of the four prerequisites
for issuing a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary
Injunction (Doc. 4) is GRANTED.
1

FINDINGS OF FACT 1
Pinnacle and Mayo are competing agricultural supply companies that both do
business in the Sylvester, Georgia area. Until February 3, 2017, Pinnacle employed Jeff
Bradley as the Location Manager, and Jason Bradley as the Warehouse Manager, of its
Sylvester, Georgia location. As location manager, Jeff Bradley had the authority to bind
Pinnacle in any contracts for amounts less than $2500, including for ordering supplies and
for repairs and maintenance. He also had the authority to bind Pinnacle by establishing
pricing for customers on fertilizer and seed. As warehouse manager, Jason Bradley was
responsible for ordering and managing inventory, and did not require prior approval from
anyone else at Pinnacle before making these decisions.
On December 9, 2016, Pinnacle received notice from its landlord that the lease of the
Sylvester location would not be renewed. On the same day, Cole Gholston, Jeff Bradley’s
supervisor, called Jeff Bradley to inform him that the lease would not be renewed, and asked
him to relocate all of Pinnacle’s assets to Pinnacle’s Dawson, Georgia location. Dawson,
Georgia is about an hour away from Sylvester, Georgia and Pinnacle planned to conduct its
Sylvester business from there. Mr. Gholston also asked Jeff Bradley to begin searching for a
new location in Sylvester. Mayo replaced Pinnacle as the tenant in the Sylvester warehouse.
On February 1, 2017, Mr. Gholston visited the warehouse because he had heard that
Pinnacle employees had not vacated the Sylvester location or begun reporting to the
Dawson location as he requested. During his visit, Mr. Gholston found that Jeff Bradley was
still working out of the Sylvester location and that several of Pinnacle’s assets were still at the
Sylvester warehouse. As of February 1, 2017, the Bradleys were still employed by Pinnacle.
Mr. Gholston then called the Pinnacle attorneys and asked them to do an e-mail search to
determine if any confidential information had been passed from Pinnacle to Mayo. The
search revealed that confidential information had indeed been passed to Mayo. The search
also revealed multiple e-mails indicating the Bradleys’ intent to leave Pinnacle and work for
Mayo, as well as e-mails indicating that the Bradleys were already working for Mayo in
The Court makes the following findings for the limited purpose of deciding Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction and based on the evidence submitted during the hearing held on the Motion. See United States v. Jefferson County,
720 F.2d 1511, 1519 n. 21 (11th Cir. 1983) (noting that “the trial judge’s conclusions of law as well as his findings of fact
at the preliminary injunction stage are not binding on him in his determination of the merits.”)

1

2

January 2017. As soon as Pinnacle became aware of the search results, Pinnacle terminated
the Bradleys’ employment, effective February 3, 2017. Below is a summary of relevant emails:
• December 20, 2016: Jason Bradley emailed an employee of Mayo Fertilizer from his
Pinnacle account. Attached to the e-mail was a document containing Pinnacle’s
vendor information. (Plaintiff Ex. 4). In the body of the e-mail, Jason Bradley wrote,
“Jason Bradley with the new and upcoming location in Sylvester, Ga. I’m just trying
to get a head start on setting up vendors who we will use frequently. I was told to
send this info to you?” Id.
• December 21, 2016: Jason Bradley received an e-mail from Brenda Hammons, of
Hinton Oil. Hammons expressed her understanding that Pinnacle was changing its
name to Mayo Fertilizer beginning in 2017, but would continue to do business from
the same location. (Plaintiff Ex. 5). Ms. Hammons informed another Hinton Oil
employee that he should send a new W-9 to Jason Bradley’s Pinnacle e-mail account.
Id.
• December 29, 2016: Jeff Bradley was copied on an e-mail between two Mayo
employees listing employees who will need insurance through Mayo, including Jeff
and Jason Bradley. (Plaintiff Ex. 6).
• December 30, 2016: E-mail from Jason Bradley to Mayo employee, attaching new
hire forms for Jeff Bradley. (Plaintiff Ex. 7).
• January 6, 2017: E-mail from Jason Bradley’s Pinnacle account to Mayo employee.
The body of the e-mail reads, “Just checking to see if this email is working this
morning. Love Britt.” (Plaintiff Ex. 8). Britt Garwood is a Mayo employee. Garwood
previously had been employed by Plaintiff.
• January 6, 2017: E-mail from Jeff Bradley to Jason Bradley containing a pivot table,
also known as an accounts receivable list, which includes the following information
on all of Plaintiff’s customers: name, balance, credit information, credit risk, past due
status, and pending litigation. (Plaintiff Ex. 9)

3

• January 9, 2017: E-mail from Jason Bradley’s Pinnacle account to Mayo employee,
signed by Britt Garwood, which attaches Pinnacle’s policy on fringe benefits.
(Plaintiff Ex. 10)
• January 10, 2017: E-mail from Jeff Bradley to Rickard Seed, a Pinnacle supplier,
requesting that an order be sent “asap to my address listed as Mayo now.” (Plaintiff
Ex. 11)
• January 19, 2017: E-mail from Jeff Bradley to Mayo employee Britt Garwood
attaching Pinnacle’s Branch Sales Report, which details every product sold at the
Sylvester location and the profit margin and rebate information for each sale.
(Plaintiff Ex. 13)
• January 23, 2017: E-mail from Jeff Bradley to Britt Garwood that contained
Pinnacle’s profit and loss statement for December. (Plaintiff Ex. 16). The profit and
loss statement details Pinnacle’s revenue, up-front profit, rebate information, gross
profit, expenses, and earnings before interest tax depreciation amortization. Id.
• January 23, 2017: E-mail from Jeff Bradley to Britt Garwood detailing Pinnacle’s
bonus plan. (Plaintiff Ex. 17)
• January 26, 2017: E-mail from Jason Bradley on his Pinnacle account to Southeast Ag
asking for invoices to be sent to “[e-mail]” and complaining that
his Pinnacle e-mail was “acting stupid.” (Plaintiff Ex. 14)
• January 26, 2017: E-mail from Jeff Bradley to Britt Garwood with updated pivot
tables attached. (Plaintiff Ex. 15)
With regard to the tables, vendor, and pricing information passed through the emails, the evidence establishes that Plaintiff took steps to keep that information confidential.
Pinnacle required its employees to use password protection and stressed the importance of
confidentiality to new hires through the company handbook.
Jeff Bradley has known Keith Shaw, the Vice President of Mayo, for over fifteen
years, and says that he did not seriously begin talking to him about a job at Mayo until midJanuary 2017. Jeff Bradley maintains that he did not begin working for Mayo until February

4

9, 2017. 2 Jeff Bradley has been in agricultural sales in Georgia for over twenty years, and
services around fifty customers. He testified that he knows who his best and most loyal
customers are without needing to reference a list. However, he was not able to recite any
information on the pivot table or profit and loss statements from memory. In January, 2017,
Jeff Bradley said he was using Pinnacle’s pivot tables to collect outstanding balances from
Pinnacle customers. He maintains that he sent the pivot table to Britt Garwood so that Britt
could print it out for him at the Mayo warehouse since Jeff Bradley no longer had access to a
Pinnacle printer. He also maintains that he sent Garwood the bonus information and had
him print it off at Mayo so that Jeff Bradley could calculate his bonus. As of the date of the
hearing, and despite the Court’s Order and direction from his employer, Jeff Bradley still had
some of these printed documents on his desk at Mayo. 3
After terminating the Bradleys, Pinnacle had no other employees left to run the
Sylvester location and does not believe that it will be able to find replacements until
summertime. Pinnacle believes that it could service its Sylvester customers out of its
Colquitt, Georgia location, or its Vienna, Georgia location. Other than convenience or
emergency orders, Pinnacle cannot foresee any problems with servicing the Sylvester market
from Colquitt or Vienna.
DISCUSSION
“A district court may grant injunctive relief only if the moving party shows that: (1) it
has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury will be suffered
unless the injunction issues; (3) the threatened injury to the movant outweighs whatever
damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party; and (4) if issued, the
injunction would not be adverse to the public interest.” Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176
(11th Cir. 2000).

This statement is belied by e-mails showing that he had a Mayo e-mail address in early January. See Plaintiff’s Ex. 11.
The Court noted during the hearing on the Preliminary Injunction that it questioned the veracity of Jeff Bradley’s
testimony. When coupled with Jeff Bradley’s failure to adhere to the Court’s order regarding returning Plaintiff’s
information, the Court has afforded little weight to Jeff Bradley’s testimony.

2
3

5

I.

Likelihood of Success on the Merits
Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) asserts the following claims: (i) breach of fiduciary duty

against the Bradley’s; (ii) misappropriation of trade secrets against all Defendants; (iii)
tortious interference against all Defendants; and (iv) an additional tortious interference claim
against Mayo. 4
a. Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Under Georgia law, to establish a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, the Plaintiff
must establish the existence of a fiduciary duty, breach of that duty, and damage proximately
caused by the breach. McConnell v. Department of Labor, 337 Ga. App. 457, 463 (2016).
The Bradley’s owed a fiduciary duty to Pinnacle. “While an employer/employee
relationship does not always create a fiduciary relationship, and employee who may bind his
or her employer has a fiduciary duty to it.” Professional Energy Management, Inc. v. Necaise, 300
Ga. App. 223, 226 (2009). As location manager, Jeff Bradley had the authority to bind
Pinnacle in any contracts for amounts less than $2500, including for ordering supplies and
for repairs and maintenance. He also had the authority to bind Pinnacle by establishing
pricing for customers on fertilizer and seed. As warehouse manager, Jason Bradley was
responsible for ordering and managing inventory, and did not require prior approval from
anyone else at Pinnacle before making these decisions. Because Pinnacle authorized Jeff and
Jason Bradley to act on its behalf in such a manner, an agency relationship existed between
Pinnacle and the Bradleys. See Hanson Staple Co., Inc. v. Eckleberry, 297 Ga. App. 356, 358
(2009). “Where an agency relationship exists, the agent has a fiduciary duty to his principal.
Thus as [Pinnacle]’s agent[s], [the Bradleys] owed a fiduciary obligation to [Pinnacle] during
the term of [their] employment.” Id.
Although “[a]n employee breaches no fiduciary duty to the employer simply by
making plans to enter a competing business while he is still employed,” an employee
breaches a fiduciary duty by “solicit[ing] customers for a rival business before the end of his
employment” or engaging in “other similar acts in direct competition with the employer’s
business.” Necaise, 300 Ga. App. at 225. Jason Bradley’s e-mails reveal that he led two
Plaintiff’s claims for tortious interference are not related to the substance of the injunction that it seeks, so the Court
will not address Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on these claims.

4

6

suppliers/vendors to believe that they were still doing business with Pinnacle, under the
name Mayo. (Plaintiff Exs. 5, 11). Jeff Bradley’s e-mails reveal that he sent Pinnacle’s
customer lists to Britt Garwood, a Mayo employee. (Plaintiff Ex. 15). These actions go
beyond merely soliciting customers or vendors during employment. Cf. Nilan’s Alley, Inc. v.
Ginsburg, 208 Ga. App. 145, 145 (1993) (holding that employee did not directly compete with
employer’s business by inquiring whether “in the event he left [employer]’s employment in
the future, they would consider continuing to place their orders through him”). Instead, they
reveal intent to deceive Pinnacle’s vendors and share customer information with a direct
competitor.
Defendants argue that even if the first two elements of a breach of fiduciary duty
claim are satisfied, Plaintiff cannot possibly prove damages from the breach. Pinnacle has
alleged that the Bradleys’ breach of fiduciary duty has caused it harm. As a result of the
breach, Mayo has enough proprietary and confidential information to solicit business from
Pinnacle’s customers and use Pinnacle’s pricing strategies with vendors. Pinnacle is facing
the loss of these customers, and the loss of competitive advantage that it had by keeping its
vendor and profit information confidential.
Plaintiff does not have the burden of proving exact damages at the preliminary
injunction stage. See University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (“[A] preliminary
injunction is customarily granted on the basis of procedures that are less formal and
evidence that is less complete than in a trial on the merits. A party thus is not required to
prove his case in full at a preliminary injunction hearing.”). Plaintiffs must simply show
“substantial likelihood of success on the merits.” Plaintiff has alleged that that the Bradleys’
breach of fiduciary duty caused it harm, and the Court finds that Plaintiff is substantially
likely to be able to show that it suffered damages with the benefit of discovery.
b. Misappropriation of Trade Secrets
Under the Georgia Trade Secrets Act (GTSA), “[a]ctual or threatened
misappropriation [of a trade secret] may be enjoined.” O.G.C.A. § 10-1-762. To state such a
claim, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) it possessed a trade secret, and (2) the defendant

7

misappropriated the trade secret. Penalty Kick Mgmt. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co., 318 F.3d 1284,
1290-91 (11th Cir. 2003). The GTSA defines a “trade secret” as follows:
information, without regard to form, including, but not limited to, technical or
nontechnical data, a formula, a pattern, a compilation, a program, a device, a method,
a technique, a drawing, a process, financial data, financial plans, product plans, or a
list of actual or potential customers or suppliers which is not commonly known by or
available to the public and which information: (A) Derives economic value, actual or
potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by
proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure
or use; and (B) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to
maintain its secrecy. O.G.C.A. § 10-1-761(4).
The GTSA defines “misappropriation” as:
(A) Acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to
know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means; or (B) Disclosure or use
of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who (i)
Used improper means to acquire knowledge of a trade secret; (ii) At the time of
disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that knowledge of the trade secret
was: (I) Derived from or through a person who had utilized improper means to
acquire it; (II) Acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its
secrecy or limit its use; or (III) Derived from or through a person who owed a duty
to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or (iii) Before a
material change of position, knew or had reason to know that it was a trade secret
and that knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or mistake. O.C.G.A. § 10-1761(2).
Pinnacle’s profit and loss statements, pivot tables, and vendor lists are trade secrets.
The GTSA explicitly includes financial data, customer lists, and supplier lists in the statute.
Furthermore, the information was not commonly known to the public. Although Mayo may
have been aware of some customer or supplier names in Sylvester, it was not aware of or
capable of finding out the level of detail contained in any of the allegedly misappropriated
materials. Pinnacle also took reasonable measures to secure its information, such as setting
policies on confidentiality and requiring passwords before being able to access the

8

information. In a competitive market, these trade secrets also derive benefit from being kept
confidential.
By sending profit and loss statements, pivot tables, and vendor lists to Mayo, the
Bradleys misappropriated trade secrets. See American Buildings Co. v. Pascoe Building Systems, Inc.,
260 Ga. 346, 349 (1990) (“Even in the absence of an express agreement, it is an implied term
of an employment contract that an employee will not divulge a trade secret learned by virtue
of his employment to a competitor of his former employer.”); O.C.G.A. § 10-1-761(2)(A).
Mayo employees had access to these documents via e-mail, as well as access to Pinnacle
employee e-mail accounts. At this stage and procedural posture, the evidence indicates that
Mayo knew or had reason to know that these secrets were divulged through improper
means, and thus misappropriated Pinnacle’s trade secrets. See O.C.G.A. § 10-1761(2)(b)(ii)(I).
II.

Irreparable Injury
“An injury is ‘irreparable’ only if it cannot be undone through monetary remedies.

Ferrero v. Associated Materials, Inc., 923 F.2d 1441, 1449 (11th Cir. 1991). “Although economic
losses alone do not justify a preliminary injunction, ‘the loss of customers and goodwill is an
irreparable injury.’” BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. v. MCIMetro Access Transmission Services,
LLC, 425 F.3d 964, 970 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting Ferrero v. Associated Materials, Inc., 923 F.2d
1441, 1449 (11th Cir. 1991)); see also Mohr v. Bank of New York Mellon Corp., 393 F. App’x 639,
646 (11th Cir. 2010).
In Ferrero, the Eleventh Circuit confronted the question of whether an employer
would suffer irreparable harm if a former employee were allowed to solicit its top customers.
The Court upheld the district Court’s finding that the employer would “lose its investment
in good will and [would] lose its long-time customers,” and injury which would be “difficult,
if not impossible to determine monetarily.” Ferrero, 923 F.2d at 1449. Lower courts have
reached similar conclusions. For example, in Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co. v. Joiner, the district
court concluded that “[Plaintiff] will suffer irreparable injury if the [defendants] are allowed
to continue use of [Plaintiff]’s client identity and account information to solicit [Plaintiff’s]
9

customers because [Plaintiff] will be deprived of the value of the trade secret and
confidential information in which it has invested significant time and money.” 454
F.Supp.2d 1297, 1304 (S.D. Ga. 2006). In Amedisys Holding, LLC v. Interim Healthcare of
Atlanta, Inc., the district court found that Plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm if Defendant
was “allowed to solicit patients from the same doctors and facilities that were referenced in
the misappropriated Referral Logs” because it would give Defendant an “unearned
advantage in the marketplace and will likely cause [Plaintiff] to lose patients and referral
sources.” 793 F.Supp.2d 1302, 1313-14 (N.D. Ga. 2011).
In this case, Pinnacle would be irreparably harmed if Defendants are allowed to
solicit business from Pinnacle’s customers and vendors. The purpose of a preliminary
injunction is to freeze the position of the parties until a trial can be held on the merits. At
this time, if the Court did not enter an injunction preventing Defendants from soliciting
business from these customers, Pinnacle would likely lose these customers and the goodwill
that it has worked to create with them. Defendant argues that Pinnacle would not be
irreparably harmed because it would not have been conducting business with these
customers regardless of Defendants actions, as Pinnacle did not have a lease on a location in
Sylvester. Pinnacle, however, represents that it can service these customers from its other
locations in Georgia. Accordingly, for purposes of the preliminary injunction inquiry,
Plaintiff sufficiently has established that it will suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction.
III.

Balance of Harms
As discussed above, without the injunction, Plaintiff faces a loss of customers and

goodwill. Defendants, on the other hand, will only suffer the harm of not being able to
solicit or establish new business with Pinnacle’s customers with which it did not previously
have a sales relationship. As Defendants will only be prevented from using information
obtained unlawfully, they will not be harmed by the injunction. See Amedisys Holding, LLC,
793 F.Supp.2d at 1314. Furthermore, the customers will not be harmed, as Plaintiff can
continue to service them from its other locations, or the customers can buy product from a
different competitor that services the Sylvester area.
10

IV.

Public Interest
“There is a strong public policy for protecting trade secrets from misappropriation

and in promoting fair competition.” Priority Payment Systems, LLC v. Signapay, LTD, 161
F.Supp.3d 1294, 1304 (N.D. Ga. 2016). Furthermore, Georgia law specifically provides for
injunctions in cases of “actual or threatened misappropriation” of trade secrets. O.C.G.A. §
10-1-762. Accordingly, Plaintiff has met its burden of showing that an injunction preventing
Defendants from using its trade secrets is in the public interest.
SCOPE OF THE INJUNCTION
Defendants argue that Avnet v. Wyle Laboratories, Inc., 263 Ga. 615 (1993) controls the
scope of the injunction in this case. In Avnet, the Georgia Supreme Court held that, while
customer lists are considered trade secrets under Georgia law, employees’ “personal
knowledge of customer ‘information’” is not a trade secret. Id. at 620. If this were simply a
matter of Jeff Bradley’s knowledge of the names and addresses of Pinnacle’s customers or
even the general contours of Pinnacle’s contractual relationships with those customers, then
the Avnet limitation would be applicable. However, the claim here is that Defendants are
using proprietary pricing, business history, and other information contained in the allegedly
misappropriated documents to secure business which might otherwise have gone to
Pinnacle. The evidence as proffered to date indicates that Jeff Bradley did not merely leave
Plaintiff with all of this information in his mind as a result of his experience and skill. Rather,
the evidence indicates that he intentionally misappropriated this detailed data for the benefit
of Mayo. This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that the allegedly misappropriated
documents include information regarding Pinnacle customers with whom Jeff Bradley had
no relationship. Reclaiming the documents does not address the harm resulting from the
assimilation of this information by Jeff Bradley and other during the time that it was in
Mayo’s possession. Avnet goes to information that the employee possessed separate and
apart from the misappropriation. The allegation here is that the information now in Jeff
Bradley’s mind was gained as a result of the misappropriation. Accordingly, the Avnet
limitation is not appropriate here.
11

Accordingly, during the pendency of this case, Defendants and anyone acting in
concert with Defendants are hereby ORDERED:
1. to refrain from using any confidential information and trade secrets belonging to
Pinnacle, including but not limited to supplier lists, customer lists, pivot tables,
branch sales reports, and financial information;
2. to refrain from conducting business with any retail customer acquired through the
use of such confidential information and trade secrets. Defendants are not to do
business with any customer with whom it cannot establish a preexisting sales
relationship.
3. to return to Pinnacle any and all copies of such confidential information and trade
secrets, as well as any other property of Pinnacle currently in their possession.
BOND
“The court may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order only if
the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and
damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 65(c). “The amount of security required is a matter for the discretion of the trial
court; it may elect to require no security at all.” BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. v. MCIMetro
Access Transmission Services, LLC, 425 F.3d 964, 971 (11th Cir. 2005). Defendant asks for
security in the amount of $7 million, relying on Pinnacle’s sales budget. $7 million is an
improper request because it reflects the amount of sales, not profits, that Pinnacle
anticipated from the Sylvester location, and it assumes that all of Pinnacle’s Sylvester
business would choose to switch to Mayo, rather than continue with Pinnacle or do business
with one of Pinnacle’s other competitors. The Court considers $50,000 to be an appropriate
bond in this case. See Pirtek USA, LLC v. Twillman, 2016 WL 5846978, at *9 (M.D. Fla. Oct.
6, 2016) (finding reasonable a $50,000 bond in unfair competition case); Carillon Importers,
Ltd. V. Frank Pesce Int’l Group Ltd., 112 F.3d 1125, 1126-27 (11th. Cir. 1997) (finding
reasonable a $50,000 bond in a trade infringement case).

12

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 4) is
GRANTED.
SO ORDERED in Albany, Georgia, this 6th day of March , at 4:50

p.m.

/s/ Leslie J. Abrams
LESLIE J. ABRAMS, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13