International Auto Logistics, LLC v. Vehicle Processing Center of Fayetteville, Inc. et al

Filing 49

ORDER granting with limits International Auto's 30 Motion/Application for Preliminary Injunction. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(c), International Auto is hereby ORDERED to provide to the Clerk of Court security in the amount of $5000 by 11/14/16. Signed by Chief Judge Lisa G. Wood on 11/7/2016. (ca)

M

Mmtetr States: IBisftrict Court

tor ttie ^outtiem SBisttrict ot(Georgia
PmnOUiuK IBtlitOton
INTERNATIONAL AUTO LOGISTICS,
LLC,

Plaintiff,
No. 2:16-CV-10

V

VEHICLE PROCESSING CENTER OF

FAYETTEVILLE, INC.; BRETT

HARRIS; BRETT HARRIS
CONSULTING;
Defendants.

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff International Auto Logistics,
LLC's

(^^International

Injunction

against

Auto")

Defendants

Application

Brett

Consulting (^'the Harris Defendants").

for

Harris

and

Preliminary

Brett

Dkt. No. 30.

Harris

The Harris

Defendants, already the subject of a clerk's default, did not
respond to the Application.

A
2016.

despite

hearing

on

the

Application

See generally id.

being

notified

See Dkt. No. 35, 4:19-5:01.

was

held

on

September 16,

The Harris Defendants did not appear,

of

personal service of process.

the

hearing

by

certified

Id. at 5:24-6:25.

Auto filed an additional notice soon after.

mail and

International

Dkt. No. 36.

The

Application

is

now

ready

for

disposition.

For

the

reasons stated herein, it is hereby GRAE^TED with the limitations
set forth herein.
BACKGROUin?

The following undisputed facts are taken from the pleadings
and

the

sworn

testimony

of

witnesses

who

appeared

at

the

preliminary injunction hearing.
International

Auto Holds an

Extremely Lucrative

Department of

Defense Contract

International Auto is a citizen of the Southern District of

Georgia.

Dkt.

No. 1

1.

It has a government contract to

"ship, receive and deliver privately-owned vehicles of military

service and Department of Defense personnel stationed throughout

the

world."

Department

of

{"TRANSCOM").
The

five

Id.

H

8.

Defense's

United

Dkt.

No.

be

States

[worth]

35,

annually.

was

awarded

by

Transportation

in

and

could

be

one

49:12-13.

Id. at 49:06-08.

2019

contract

the

Command

Id.

contract "could

years.

This

billion

It

dollars" over

must

be

renewed

The contract will be awarded anew
worth

another

International Auto hopes to receive it.

billion

dollars;

Id. at 49:13-21.

In the event International Auto is unable to perform its

current

contract,

it

will

be

denied

future

options.

Id.

at

52:14-15.
contracts.

It will also fail as a business, as it has no other
Id. at 10:15-17, 52:15-16.

VPCF
Hired
the
Harris
Defendants
International Auto's Supposed Debt

to

Help

It

Vehicle Processing Center of Fayetteville, Inc.
alleges that International Auto owes it money.
6; Dkt. No. 18 nil 13, 37-38.

Collect

C'VPCF")^

Dkt. No. 1

2,

The Court is currently presiding

over these parties' cross-claims pertaining to the alleged debt.
See Dkt. Nos. 1, 18.

VPCF hired the Harris Defendants to help collect the debt.

Dkt. No. 18 n 14.

The Harris Defendants are Brett Harris as an

individual and Brett Harris

apparently operates.

Consulting, a business concern he

Dkt. No. 1 UK 3-4.

Their relationship

with VPCF has ended.

Dkt. No. 35, 8:05-13; Dkt. No. 37 at 1

(^^Brett

currently

Harris

is

not

authorized

to

do

anything on

behalf of VPCF.").
Harris

First

Threatens

to

Contact

Third

Parties

and

the

Government

International Auto presented undisputed evidence that the
Harris Defendants harassed International Auto's

government and
agencies.

subcontractor

partners,

and

employees, its

various government

The harassment began ten months ago and flared up

again within the past two.

^

An

International

Auto

Application's outcome.

subcontractor;

it

Dkt. No. 35, 4:17-18.

takes

no

stance

as

to

the

In November 2015, Harris phoned International Auto manager

Jill Boggs, ^'directing [her] to deal with him on [a] settlement
proposal between [International Auto] and [VPCF]."
Ex. C at 10.

Boggs infonned VPCF that she would not do so.

Harris emailed Boggs three days later.

Boggs

that

refusing

permission

to

sources

[he]

as

Dkt. No. 8,

get

to

the

speak

to

information

deem[ed]

necessary

Id. at 5.

him

would

[he]

need[ed]

and/or

Harris also threatened investigations:

Id.

He warned

^'giv [e]

[him]

from

other

appropriate."

Id.

^MA]gencies really seem

to appreciate a curious little nosy-Nellie like me poking around
and serving them up cases on a silver platter."

Id. at 9.

Harris Threatens a Subcontractor

The

undisputed

December 2015,

evidence

Harris

indicates

contacted "one

principal subcontractors, Kay Lester."

that

the

next

month,

of [International Auto's]

Dkt. No. 30, Ex. B H 9.

Lester is integral to International Auto's business, and loss of

their

relationship

would

put

International

breach on its federal contract.

Id. H 14.

Auto

at

risk

of

Lester "expressed

[to International Auto] her displeasure that she had been drawn

into [the] dispute."

Id. H 9.

Harris's call left Lester "quite

angry" and her CFO "almost in tears."
Minutes later,

George

to

Harris

"threaten[]

to

contacted

report

Dkt. No. 35, 36:02.
Lester's

criminal

attorney

Charles

allegations

against

[International

Auto]

and

Ms.

officials, unless VPCF was paid."

Lester

to

various

federal

Dkt. No. 30, Ex. B f 10.

Mr. Harris made a number of thinly-veiled threats to

report [International Auto] and Ms. Lester's companies
to the Department of Defense Investigator General.
Mr. Harris refused to identify any particular conduct
which he felt warranted such a report.
Instead, Mr.
Harris
made
a
number
of
vague
comments
about

^^hypothetical" conduct which he indicated he planned
to report . . . .

Id. Ex. D H 6 (parenthetical omitted)).
Harris also went on a tirade against International Auto,
telling George that

there

[we]re

illegal

activities

[International Auto is] crooks[.]

going

on,

that

[Harris used] foul

language . . . [describing International Auto as]
sons-of-you-know-whatever.
The F bomb was dropped at
least three or four times . . . [Harris] also [said]

that [International Auto was] racists . . . [who had]
set [a man who is not a party] up for failure and
ripped him off deliberately because he was black.
Dkt. No. 35, 38:06-14.

In

a

later

talk

with

George,

Harris

claimed

to

have

reported Lester's company to Texas tax authorities for a minor
irregularity, but said that his '''very good friend work[ed] there

and they [we]re going to go easy" on the business.
40:01-02.

Id. at

The irregularity was real, but so obscure that George

thought that it would be found '''only [by] an individual that had
either an axe
person."

to grind or was a very reckless and dangerous

Id. at 40:12, 41:06-08.

During their final conversation, Harris told George that
^MLester's]

team

[]

needed

to

put

some

pressure

on

[International Auto] to start paying some bills . . . and that
[Lester's
Harris

company]

said

Lester's

needed

^^that

company

some

did

to

fix

it."

unpleasant

not

Id.

things

cooperate:

at

could

^^Somebody

41:24-42:02.
happen"

could

making phone calls and report things that are going on.
matter if they are real or not.

if

start

Doesn't

We can still report them or

somebody could and then we could get the [Department of Defense]
inspector general's office involved and that would create a huge
mess."

Id. at 42:05-06, 11-15 (emphasis added).

George accused Harris of extortion.
this all the time.

paid."

Harris replied:

do

This is how I make sure that I get the bills

Id. at 42:19-23.

Harris ^'proceeded to [say] again that

it was very easy to make a phone call or two and, quote/unquote,
plant a seed."
These

Id. at 43:04-05.

conversations

International Auto.

soured

Lester's

relationship

with

Lester ^^has lost confidence . . . and began

to question the value and the values of [International Auto]."
Id. at 44:13-15.

Any additional contact from Harris ^'will have

further damage" and erode the good will that International Auto
has begun to repair.

Id. at 44:23, 45:21-46:02.

Lester is

already concerned about Harris's recent re-initiation of contact
with International Auto.

Id. at 46:03-08.

Harris Contacts the Department of Defense

According

to

the

undisputed

evidence

presented

by-

International Auto, in February 2016, U.S. Air Force Lt. Col.
Todd

Jensen,

International

Auto's

prime

informed International Auto that Harris

TRANSCOM.

TRANSCOM

customer,

had repeatedly called

Dkt. No. 30, Ex. C H 4; Dkt. No. 35, 33:02-04.

One

call Jensen himself answered "was quite lengthy, quite negative

in regards to [International Auto]."

Dkt. No. 35, 33:11-14.

Jensen "led [International Auto] to believe that . . . if

[the

calls]

continued

Government's

it

eyes."

would

Id.

look

at

poorly

.

33:15-17.

.

.

He

in

the

"advised

[International Auto] that future calls by Mr. Harris . . . would

cause problems."

Dkt. No. 30, Ex. C H 5.

Harris

International

Harasses

Auto's

Employees

and

Cleaning

Company

Per the undisputed evidence presented in the pleadings and
at the hearing, in July 2016, Harris called an International
Auto

employee

located

in

Brunswick,

Georgia,

Karen

Blocker,

saying that International Auto needed to pay VPCF's debts to a
company named A-1 Supply.

30:09.

3-4; Dkt. No. 35, 29:24-

Harris represented that A-1 Supply authorized him to

make the call.

Supply

Id. Ex. A

has

Dkt. No. 35, 20:08-12.

never

"provide[d]

any

In fact, though, A-1

materials

directly

to

[International Auto]"; it is a VPCF supplier.

Id. at 20:21-

21:02.

When Blocker told Harris that she had ^^no authority to make

payment," he said ^^that he

had

contacted

the

^would be adding [her] name to the list.'"

6-7.
with

and

Dkt. No. 30, Ex. A

Blocker took this as a suggestion that not cooperating

Harris

Harris

FBI

was

^^asked

a

federal

[Blocker]

crime.

if

[she]

Dkt.

was

company go down and [her] with it."

at her until she hung up.

No.

35,

willing

to

26:18-27:01.

watch

Id. at 26:13-14.

[her]

He yelled

Dkt. No. 30, Ex. A H 7.

Harris immediately called back and was answered by Deborah
Davis

of

International

27:21-22, 28:16-29:02.

Auto's

at

28:17-18.

resources.

Dkt.

No.

would go under and did [she] care."

During

their

call,

Harris

referred

International Auto's president by a very offensive name.
29:06-11.

35,

Harris asked Davis ^'if [she] was aware

that [International Auto]

Id.

human

He used other profanities, too.

to

Id. at

Id. at 29:21-23.

Harris told Davis that if she hung up, ""he would know that [she]

really didn't care about [the] company and . . . must not care
about whether [she] had a job."
Id. at 30:10-15.

Id. at 31:01-03.

The call offended Davis.

call, too, was received in Georgia.

At

some

point,

Harris

called

She hung up.

Id. at 31:20.

This

Dkt. No. 35, 29:24-30:09.

a

small

cleaning

company

working at an International Auto facility, accusing its owner of
8

^^hiring felons to work in the facility."

Dkt. No. 35, 17:10-13.

The call ''upset [the owner] considerably."

Id. at 17:13-14.

Harris Files False Govermnent Complaints

Undisputed sworn testimony showed that Harris has also made

anonymous false complaints to the government.

Id. H 8.

He

called an environmental agency and a fire department to allege
that an

International

Auto facility "had

excessive amounts of

used motor oil laying around, that batteries were strewn along
the fence line of the property and that [the site] had asbestos
untaken-care-of."

Dkt.

No.

35,

16:05-08.

Subsequent

inspections failed to turn up evidence of any violations.

Id.

at 16:09-10; Dkt. No. 30 Ex. B H 8.
International
Injunction

Auto

Files

Suit

and

Applies

for

a

Preliminary

International Auto filed suit against the Harris Defendants

in

mid-January

contractual

2016,

and

alleging

business

tortious

relations,

interferences

tortious

coercion,

with
and

violations of the Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act
(GUDTPA).

Dkt. No. 1

International

26-35.

Auto

filed

the

present

Preliminary Injunction on September 2, 2016.

The

Court

heard

argument and

September 16, 2016.

evidence

Dkt. No. 35.

Application

for

Dkt. No. 30 at 10.

on the

Application on

The Harris Defendants did not

appear, despite being notified of the hearing by certified mail
and personal service.

Id. at 5:24-6:25.

Harris Threatens George for Testifying at the Hearing
International Auto filed an additional notice on September
25, 2016.

Dkt. No. 36.

The notice infonned the

after the hearing, Harris again contacted George.

Court that

Id. at 5.

Harris left a voicemail telling George that Harris knew about

George's hearing testimony.
with

the

action

against

Id.

him

of

Harris ^^accused all involved
being

^stupid.'"

Id.

at 6.

Harris accused all such people of ^"^messing with somebody who is

far smarter than you are and has already figured out all of the
plays that

you

Id.

Harris

out'

that

can

make

asserted

he

'*kind

and

that
of

has

these

does

already accounted
people

not

give

^'should
a

for

have

them."

^figured

[shit]
' about

what

happens" and figured out how he behaves, warning George not to

oppose him.
of

perjury

Id. (brackets omitted).
^'and

threatened

attorney's] law licenses."

Harris also accused George

retributive

actions

against

[the

Id.

Legal Standard

For a preliminary injunction. International Auto must show:
(1)

the

a

substantial

merits;

(2)

likelihood

of

[that]

injunction

an

ultimate

necessary to prevent irreparable injury;
the
threatened
injury
outweighs
the

success

.

.

.

on

is

(3) [that]
harm
the

injunction . . . would inflict on the non-movant; and
(4) [that] the injunction . . . would not be adverse
to the public interest.

10

Mitchell

(S.D.

V.

Ga.

Williams /

Feb.

22,

No.

6:15-CV-93,

2016).

2016

International

WL

723038,

Auto

at

*4

must ''clearly

establish[] the burden of persuasion as to all four elements."
Horton V. City of St. Augustine, 272 F.3d 1318, 1326 (11th Cir.

2001) (quotation marks omitted) (quoting Siegel v. Lepore, 234
F.3d 1163, 1175 (11th Cir. 2000)).

"[T]he Court must provide

notice to" the adverse party . . . ."

Mitchell, 2016 WL 723038,

at *4 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)).
DISCUSSION

For the reasons herein. International Auto's Application is

GRANTED

with limitations.

injunction

elements,

Before

four

turning

procedural

to

the

and

preliminary

constitutional

considerations are in order.
I. THE HARRIS DEFENDANTS RECEIVED NOTICE.

The Court may issue a preliminary injunction because the
Harris Defendants received

hearing.

See

Fed.

R.

notice

Civ.

P.

of

a

preliminary injunction

65(a)(1);

Mitchell,

723038, at *4; Dkt. No. 35, 4:19-5:01, 5:24-6:25.

2016

WL

Additionally,

the Clerk of Court and International Auto are hereby ORDERED to

serve personal notice of this Order on the Harris Defendants.
II. THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION.

The

diversity.

Court

has

subject

matter

jurisdiction

pursuant

to

International Auto is a Georgia citizen, the Harris

11

Defendants

$75,000.^

are

not,^

and

the

amount

in

controversy

exceeds

Dkt. No. 1 n 1/ 3, 5.

The Court has personal jurisdiction.

Personal jurisdiction

requires satisfying both the state long-arm statute and federal
constitutional due process.

Gilmore v. Account Mgmt.^ Inc./ No.

1:08-CV-1388, 2009 WL 2848278, at *3 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 27, 2009).

The Court has personal jurisdiction over the Harris Defendants
under

Georgia's

long-am

statute,

and

that

jurisdiction

satisfies federal constitutional due process.

Georgia's

long-am

statute

grants

personal

jurisdiction

over non-resident defendants transacting any business in Georgia

or committing a tortious act in Georgia.

O.C.G.A. § 9-10-91(1)-

(2).

The Harris Defendants qualify as such 'Mb]ecause [they]

sent

[International

Auto]

multiple

collection

[emails]

concerning a debt that allegedly occurred in Georgia and phoned
[International

Auto]

in

Georgia

on

multiple

occasions."

^ "[T]he district court . . . may review any evidence . . . to resolve factual
disputes concerning . . . jurisdiction." Milleville v. United States, 751 F.
Supp. 976, 977 (M.D. Fla. 1990). The Court finds that the Harris Defendants
are not Georgia citizens.
Harris was personally served at a Texas address.
Dkt. No. 4 at 6; Pl.'s Ex.

1

at 1-2, Sept. 16, 2016 (under seal).

On

September 12-13, 2016, multiple Texans identified Harris as their neighbor
and tenant.
Pl.'s Ex. 1 at 1-2, Sept. 16, 2016 (under seal).
Harris
informed the Court that he was temporarily receiving mail at a friend's Texas
residence on March 21, 2016.
According to Harris's email byline, one of
Brett Harris Consulting's office phone numbers has a Texas area code, and the
other a California one. Dkt. No. 8, Ex. C at 5, 10, 12. A preponderance of
the evidence thus shows that the Harris Defendants are not Georgia citizens.
See, e.g., Patel v. Patel, No. 4:14-CV-117, 2014 WL 5025821, at *2 (S.D. Ga.

Oct. 7, 2014) (citing Paterson v. Weinberger, 644 F.2d 521, 523 (5th Cir.
1981)).

^ International Auto alleges that the Harris Defendants imperil a contract
worth

hundreds

prospect.

of

millions

of

dollars,

Dkt. No. 35, 49:12-21.
12

plus

a

billion-dollar

contract

Gilmore,

2009

Presbyterian

317190,

WL

2848278,

Church

at

*2

v.

(S.D.

Ga.

*3;

see

Recovery,

CC

at

No.

Jan.

28,

also
CV

2014)

Belle

112-084,

(''[I]t

Terrace
2014

appears

WL

that

Defendant is a nonresident entity that purposefully engaged in
debt collection

efforts

in

Georgia,

and

the

arises from those debt collection efforts.

cause

of

action

These allegations

are sufficient" for Georgia long-arm jurisdiction).

Long-arm jurisdiction here satisfies federal constitutional
due

process.

jurisdiction

Due
to

those

process

limits

defendants

who

the

Court's

personal

have

^^minimum

contacts"

with Georgia and for whom personal jurisdiction is compatible
with '"traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice."
Int'l

Shoe

Co.

v.

State

of

Wash.,

Office

Placement, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945).
is

satisfied "if the

specific
That is

act" in
the

cause

Georgia.

case

here:

of action

of

Unemp't

Comp.

&

The minimum-contacts prong
arises

out of [even one]

Gilmore, 2009 WL 2848278, at *3.
"[The

Harris]

Defendant[s']

multiple

contacts with Georgia relate directly to [International Auto's]
claims against it."

Id. at *4.

Moreover, [the Harris Defendants] purposefully availed
[themselves]
of
the
privileges
of
conducting
activities within Georgia when [they] knowingly sent
demand [emails] and made collection calls to a Georgia
resident
to collect a debt
allegedly
incurred
in
Georgia . . . .

13

Id.

^'Additionally,

given

[the

Harris

Defendants']

multiple

phone calls and [emails] to [International Auto], it had fair
warning that it might have to appear" here.

Long-arm

jurisdiction

substantial justice.

Id.

here also satisfies

fair

play and

"Individuals should be able to file suit

in the state where they receive illegal communications by outof-state

collection

agencies

'could

violative

agencies

invoke

the

because

otherwise,

protection

[communications]

with

of

relative

collection

distance

and

impunity.'"

send
Id.

(quoting Vlasak v. Rapid Collection Sys., Inc., 962 F. Supp.
1096, 1102 (N.D. 111. 1997)).
III. THE APPLICATION IS UNOPPOSED.

The present Application is unopposed.

"Failure to respond

within the applicable time period shall indicate that there is
no opposition to a motion."
Defendants

never

Application.

S.D. Ga. L. R. 7.5.

responded,

despite

being

aware

of

the

See Dkt. No. 35, 4:19-5:01, 5:24-6:25.

Thus, the Court must only "review
materials

The Harris

submitted

in

support"

[Application] . . . is supported."

all of the evidentiary

to

"ensure

that

the

United States v. 5800 SW

74th Ave., 363 F.3d 1099, 1101-02 (11th Cir. 2004).
IV. A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS CONSTITUTIONAL.

A

preliminary

injunction

here

is

constitutional.

In

Georgia, preliminary injunctions against libel and slander only
14

issue

in rare

cases

because

of

freedom

of

speech.

Cohen v.

Advanced Med. Grp. of Ga., Inc., 496 S.E.2d 710 (Ga. 1998);
Fernandez v. N. Ga. Regional Med. Ctr.^ Inc.^ 400 S.E.2d 6 (Ga.

1991); High Country Fashions, Inc. v. Marlenna Fashions, Inc.,
357

S.E.2d

576

(Ga.

1987);

Brannon

v.

Am.

Micros

Distribs.,

Inc., 342 S.E.2d 301 (Ga. 1986).^
Thus, International Auto must ''carry the heavy burden" of

showing that "it would be irreparably harmed . . . so as to
justify
However,

the

prior

it

can do

especially

restraint."
so

disruption

Cohen,

by showing

caused

by

496

major

false

S.E.2d

business

at

711.

disruption,

impersonation.

See

Parland v. Millennium Constr. Servs., LLC, 623 S.E.2d 670, 671,

673 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005).
International Auto has carried its burden.

undisputed
contract

evidence
worth

that

hundreds

the
of

Harris

Defendants

millions

of

It presented

could

dollars

cost
if

a

not

immediately enjoined, and that its business would collapse as a

result.

Lester clearly expressed that any additional contact

from Harris "will have further damage" and erode International

Auto's good

will.

Dkt. No. 35, 44:23,

45:21-46:02.

Loss of

^ The federal First Amendment is somewhat less restrictive. See, e.g., Snyder
V. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443, 452 (2011) ("[R]estricting speech on purely private
matters does not implicate the same constitutional concerns as limiting
speech on matters of piablic interest . . .
Energy Four, Inc. v. Domier
Med. Sys., Inc., 765 F. Supp. 724, 735 (N.D. Ga. 1991) ("Dornier's statements
are not entitled to first amendment protection because they are untrue.");
but see Baker v. Joseph, 938 F. Supp. 2d 1265, 1269 (S.D. Fla. 2013)
("[P]rior restraints on speech are disfavored.").
15

Lester as a business partner ^^would . . . put [International

Auto]

in a position

where

its continued

federal contract] was at risk."

at 52:17-19 (indicating that

performance

[of

its

Id. at 52:02-03; see also id.

Lester's

withdrawal

would

possibl[y]" cause International Auto to default).

^'quite

Failure to

perform would stop International Auto from ''get[ting] any future
options."

Id. at 52:15.

This would cause International Auto's

"business [to] substantially . . . fail."

Lester is not
could pull.

the

only plug

Id. at 52:15-16.

that the

Harris Defendants

Lt. Col. Jensen, who is International Auto's sole

customer, "led [International Auto] to believe that he had some
concern

about

Government's
33:19-22.

the

the

effect

relationship

of

[Harris's]

with

[International

calls

on

Auto]."

the

Id. at

"[I]f the calls continued and they got past him [to

general-officer

level]

.

.

.

[International Auto] in the future."

The

further

Harris Defendants are

it

could

look

poorly

for

Id. at 33:24-34:01.

perhaps

as

close

as one

phone

call away from destroying International Auto's relationship with

either

Lester

or

TRANSCOM—and

just

as

close

to

snuffing

International Auto out of existence.

The

undisputed

evidence

also

showed

that

the

Harris

Defendants are using impersonation, purporting to collect debts

on behalf of VPCF and A-1 Supply when they in fact lack any

16

(current) authorization to do so.

This renders a preliminary

injunction especially appropriate, pursuant to Parland.
This

is

injunction

the

extremely

against

rare

false

misleading

or

case

where

speech

a

preliminary

comports

with

Georgia's constitutional values.
V.

INTERNATIONAL AUTO IS ENTITLED TO A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.

Turning

claims^

now

undergird

to

the

preliminary

International

injunction

Auto's

factors,

Application:

two

tortious

interferences and GUDTPA.

There

is

irreparable

injury

customers and goodwill" suffices.

here

because

^'the

loss

of

BellSouth Telecommc'ns. Inc.

V. MCIMetro Access Transmission Servs., LLC, 425 F.3d 964, 970

(11th Cir. 2005) (quoting Ferrero v. Ass'd Materials, Inc., 923
F.2d 1441, 1449 (11th Cir. 1991)).

As described above, this is

an imminent risk, and International Auto already lost much good

will with Lester.

Dkt. No. 35, 44: 13-15 (stating that Lester

^'has lost confidence . . . and began to question the value and
the values of [International Auto].").

The

balance

of

the

equities

favors

an

injunction,

too,

because the Harris Defendants have no right to commit torts or

use deceptive trade practices.

Besides, their arrangement with

® International Auto has requested that a third tortious coercion count be
dismissed without prejudice, with the ability to refile if the Harris
Defendants file a criminal complaint.
Dkt. No. 38 at 6 n.5.
The Court
GRANTS this request.
See, e.g.. Shannon v. Office Max N. Am., Inc., 662
S.E.2d 885, 888 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008) (holding threats not to be tortious
coercion sans issuance of warrants or initiation of criminal proceedings).
17

VPCF

has

ended

and

International

Auto

owes

no

debt

to

A-1

Supply, so the Harris Defendants have no legitimate debt to
collect.

See,

e.g..

United States

v. Gordon,

No.

2005 WL 2237640, at *2 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 25, 2005)

CV205-158,

{''Defendants

will merely be prevented from doing that which they have no
right [to] do . . . ."); Dkt. No. 35, 8:05-13; 20:21-21:02.

Lastly, the public interest favors issuing a preliminary
injunction because an injunction will "allow[] federal officials
to carry out their duties free from harassment."
WL 2237640, at *2.

Gordon, 2005

It is in the public interest for Department

of Defense officials, including Lt. Col. Jensen and the Office

of

Inspector

General,

to be

free

to do their

work

without

Harris's wasting their time in pursuit of his vendetta against
International Auto.

It is in the public interest for the Court

to be free to adjudicate this case without suffering iinlawful
harassment.

See

Dkt.

No.

36

at

5-6

(describing

Harris's

insinuations regarding the way he behaves, directed at everyone
involved in these proceedings).
A. International
Auto
Has
a
Substantial
Likelihood
Success on Its Tortious Interferences Claims.

of

International Auto has a substantial likelihood of success
on

the

merits

on

its

tortious

interferences

claim.

To

show

tortious interferences, International Auto must prove "that 'the

[Harris

D]efendant[s]:

(1)

acted

18

improperly

and

without

privilege;

(2)

acted

purposefully

and

maliciously

with

the

intent to injure; (3) induced a third party not to enter into or
continue a business relationship with [it]; and (4) caused [it]

some financial injury.'"

Meadow Springs, LLC v. IH RiverdalC/

LLC, 747 S.E.2d 47, 50 (Ga. App. 2013).
^^To

establish

.

.

.

that

the

defendant

acted

^without privilege,' the plaintiff must show that the defendant
was a stranger to the contract or business relation at issue."
Mabra v. SF, Inc., 728 S.E.2d 737, 740 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).
Harris

Defendants

were

strangers

to

International

The

Auto's

dealings with Lester, TRANSCOM, and its cleaning company.

They

were also strangers to International Auto's supposed debt after
VPCF revoked their authorization to collect it.
The

Malice

second

is

element

^^unauthorized

is

satisfied

interference,

legal justification or excuse."
Bank

of

Ga.,

N.A.,

(citations omitted).

487
The

for

or

with

VPCF,

reasons.

interference

without

NationsBank, N.A. v. SouthTrust

S.E.2d

701,

Harris

and

A-1

707

Defendants

basis for harassing International Auto.

arrangement

similar

(Ga.

App.

1997)

any

legal

lack

They have no current

Supply

never

supplied

International Auto, so they are not trying to collect any true
debt.

Dkt. No. 35, 8:05-13; 20:21-21:02; Dkt. No. 37 at 1.

As to the third and fourth elements. International Auto can

satisfy its preliminary injunction burden merely by showing that
19

""there

would be continued [wrongdoing]" that ""would result in

irreparable injury, damage, and loss."

Norwich Pharmacal Co. v.

Veterinary Corp. of Am., 296 F. Supp. 937, 942 (M.D. Ga. 1968);
see also GSW, Inc. v. Long County, 999 F.2d 1508, 1519 (11th
Cir. 1993).

ago,

the

International Auto did so, showing that two months

Harris

Defendants

resumed

their

harassment,

and

International Auto's relationships with its prime customer and a

key subcontractor are near the breaking point.
Harris

Defendants

been

daunted—they

are

now

Nor have the
making

veiled

threats against an International Auto witness as a result of his
testimony at the preliminary injunction hearing.

See Dkt. No.

36 at 6 (warning George that those involved in these proceedings
are ""messing with somebody who is far smarter than you are and

has already figured out all of the plays that you can make" and
that these people ""should have "figured out'" how he behaves).
This evidence suffices even though International Auto has

not yet been forced into breaching its federal contract, because
the

Harris

Defendants

more difficult."

made

International

Auto's

""performance

Derosa v. Shiah, 421 S.E.2d 718, 722 (Ga. Ct.

App. 1992) (quoting S. Bus. Machs. of Savannah, Inc. v. Norwest
Fin. Leasing, Inc., 390 S.E.2d 402, 407 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990)).

They

sent

International

Auto

into

damage-control

mode

required it to spend time repairing good will with Lester.
No. 35, 44:23, 45:21-46:02.

20

and
Dkt.

International Auto has thus shown a substantial likelihood

of success on the merits and so is entitled to a preliminary

injunction on the basis of tortious interferences.
B. International

Auto

Has

a

Substantial

Likelihood

of

Success \inder 6BDTPA.

International
success

under

Auto

also

GtJDTPA.

has

The

a

siibstantial

Harris

likelihood

Defendants

made

of

factual

misrepresentations that disparaged International Auto, and they
are likely to do so again if not enjoined.
GUDTPA
business,

business

prohibits

vocation,

"by

a

or

false

person

acting "in

occupation" from

or

misleading

the

course

disparaging

representation

of

his

another's

of

fact."

O.C.G.A. § 10-1-372(a)(8).

GUDTPA does not require anyone to

have actually been deceived.

O.C.G.A. § 10-1-372(b).

International Auto has presented sufficient evidence that
the Harris Defendants violated GUDTPA.

In the course of their

debt-collection

false

disparaging,

business,

factual

they

statements

made

about

or

misleading,

International

Auto.

Harris told George that "there [we]re illegal activities going
on, that [International Auto is] crooks[.] . . . [Harris] also
[said] that [International Auto was] racists . . . [who had] set

[a man who is not a party] up for failure and ripped him off
deliberately

because

he

was

black."

21

Dkt.

No.

35,

38:06-14.

Harris

also

falsely

government agencies.
Harris

reported

infractions

to

make

more

false

or

^^Somebody could start making

phone calls and report things that are going on.
if they are real or not.

and

misleading

He threatened to file an intentionally false report

with the Department of Defense:

could

to

Id. at 16:05-10; Dkt. No. 30 Ex. B H 8.®

threatened

statements.

environmental

then

we

Doesn^t matter

We can still report them or somebody

could

get

the

[Department

of

Defense]

inspector general's office involved and that would create a huge
mess."

Dkt. No. 35, 42:05-06, 11-15 (emphasis added).

Further,

as recently as July 2016, Harris threatened to report Blocker to

the FBI, implying that refusing to cooperate with him was a
federal crime.

These

Dkt. No. 30, Ex. A

threats

International

Auto

satisfy

Wireless,
®

Of

Inc.,

course,

the

GUDTPA's

be '^likely

O.C.G.A. § 10-1-373(a); see

90

F.

Court

to

be

be

3d

No.

30

Ex.

B

H

8

damaged" in

1329,

absolutely

statements were in fact misleading or false.

Dkt.

requirement

also Iler Grp.,

Supp.

cannot

6-7.

(indicating

Inc.

the

that
future.

v. Discrete

1342

(N.D.

certain

that

Ga.
any

of

2015)
these

But see Dkt. No. 35, 16:02-10;

government

inspections

uncovered

no

evidence of what Harris reported. to be highly visible violations).
But the
Harris Defendants' failure to oppose International Auto's application means
that it does not have to be.
It is enough that "the evidentiary materials

submitted in support" of the Application in fact support the Application.
United States v. 5800 SW 74th Ave., 363 F.3d 1099, 1101-02 (11th Cir. 2004).

The allegation made in the Application—that Harris violation GUDTPA—is amply
supported by these apparently unfoiinded accusations.
The Court will not put International Auto on trial as to each of them
when the Harris Defendants have failed to do so.

system.

"[T]his is an adversarial

It is not a court's task to research legal arguments on a party's

behalf . . . ."
Apex/FCC, LLC v. FlexiCrew Staffing, Inc., Civ. A. No. 120507, 2012 WL 5398803, at *4 (S.D. Ala. Nov. 1, 2012) (quoting Minemyer v. B-

Roc Reps., Inc., 695 F. Supp. 2d 797, 809 (N.D. 111. 2009)).
22

(requiring showing of ongoing harm); Catrett v. Landmark Dodge,
Inc., 560 S.E.2d 101, 106 n.34 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).
International

30,

at

Auto's

5-6

identification

(describing

future

of

future

So does

harms.

consequences

Dkt.

of

No.

continued

harassment).
Sufficient

evidence

has

demonstrated

that

the

Harris

Defendants have violated GUDTPA, and they are likely to continue
to

do

so

if

not

enjoined.

International

Auto

has

shown

a

sxabstantial likelihood of success on this claim, and so this is

a second justification for a preliminary injunction.
C. The Harris Defendants Are Enjoined.

The

Court

understands

that

the

injunction

here

must

particularly narrow in deference to free speech rights.

be

The

Court will not restrain or enjoin any legitimate, lawful debtcollection

efforts

that

the

Harris

Defendants

may

undertake.

See, e.g., Carroll v. President & Comm'rs of Princess Anne, 393

U.S. 175, 181 (1968) ('MT]he [U.S. Supreme] Court has insisted

upon

careful

procedural

provisions,

designed

to

assure

the

fullest presentation and consideration of the matter which the
circumstances permit.").
TERMS OF THE INJUNCTION

The

Court

thus

ENJOINS

Brett

Harris

and

Brett

Harris

Consulting and their officers, agents, servants, and employees,
from:

23

(a)

making

complaints

to

TRANSCOM

or

the

Department

of

Defense Office of Inspector General regarding the conduct of (i)
International Auto, (ii) International Auto's personnel, (iii)

any entity that Harris knows to be in a contractual or other
business relationship with International Auto, (iv) any entity
that Harris knows to be owned by Kay Lester, or (v)

Charles

George, unless Harris believes in good faith that said conduct
is unlawful and seeks permission from the Court for good cause
shown;

(b) expressing to any person that Harris is authorized to
collect a debt owed by International Auto until proof of such

authorization is presented to the Court in the form of a sworn
statement by the debt holder;

(c) contacting International Auto to attempt to collect any

debt until proof of authorization to collect such a debt is
presented to the Court in the form of a sworn statement by the
debt holder;

(d)

threatening

any

person

whom

Harris

knows

to

be

appearing as a party or as a witness before the Court in its
adjudication of International Auto's claimed debt to VPCF with
the intention of dissuading that person's participation in these
proceedings; and

(e) making any disparaging statements of alleged fact ^
(i)

International

Auto,

(ii)

International

24

Auto's

officers,

agents, servants, and employees, (iii) any entity that Harris
knows to be in a contractual or other business relationship with

International

owned

by

Auto,

Kay

(iv)

Lester,

any entity

or

(v)

that

Charles

Harris

knows

George,

to

about

be

(i)

International Auto, (ii) International Auto's personnel, (iii)

any entity that Harris knows to be in a contractual or other
business relationship with International Auto, (iv) any entity
that Harris knows to be owned by Kay Lester, or (v) Charles

George.

However, if the Harris Defendants believe they have a

good faith reason for making such disparaging statements, they
may seek permission from the Court to do so for good cause
shown.

This injunction is subject to modification by the Court's

further order upon notice given to the parties.

It will remain

effective until this case is closed.
CONCLUSION

International

Auto's

Application

for

Preliminaiy

Injunction, dkt. no. 30, is hereby GRANTED with limits for the
reasons

stated

above.

Pursuant

to

Federal

Rule

of

Civil

Procedure 65(c), International Auto is hereby ORDERED to provide

to

the

Clerk

of

Court

security

November 14, 2016.

25

in

the

amount

of

$5000

by

so ORDERED, this 7th day of November, 2016.

LISA GODBEY WOOD, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

26