MGI, Inc. et al v. Tucker

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 5 ) is GRANTED. Tucker is hereby enjoined from: (1) contacting MGI employees, Kyle Black, and Michelle Black other than through legal coun sel; (2) making false statements to MGI employees, MGI affiliates, law enforcement agencies, other state or federal government entities, and other third persons regarding MGI, its affiliates, and Black; and (3) threatening to pursue criminal prosecut ion against Black and MGI unless MGI agrees to pay a severance payment. Plaintiffs shall serve this order on Tucker and file a certification of service regarding the same. Signed by Judge David C. Nye. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (hs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
MGI, INC., an Idaho corporation; and
KYLE BLACK,

Case No. 1:24-cv-00321-DCN
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

Plaintiffs,
v.
MORGAN TUCKER,
Defendant.

I. INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is Plaintiffs MGI, Inc. (“MGI”), and Kyle Black’s (“Black”) Ex
Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (“Motion”).
Dkt. 2.
The Court previously granted, in part, Plaintiffs’ Motion by entering a Temporary
Restraining Order against Tucker (“TRO Order”). Dkt. 7. However, the Court held in
abeyance Plaintiffs’ broader request for a preliminary injunction because it cannot enter a
preliminary injunction without “notice to the adverse party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1). See
Dkt. 7, at 1, 9–10.
Tucker was advised of Plaintiffs’ Motion and has now had an opportunity to
respond. The Court held a hearing on September 25, 2024. Tucker did not appear. Upon
review, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the Motion for Preliminary
Injunction.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER – 1

II. BACKGROUND
The Court outlined the facts of this case in its prior order and will only review them
briefly here. See Dkt. 7, at 2–4. MGI is a medical gas installation company. Black is the
President and majority shareholder of MGI. Black is a decorated combat veteran and
advertises that MGI is a veteran-owned business.
On March 5, 2024, MGI hired Tucker to fill the role of “Operations Director.” On
May 28, 2024, MGI terminated Tucker’s employment. Shortly thereafter Tucker began a
campaign of harassment and defamation against MGI and Black claiming that Black is not
a veteran and that MGI should not claim to be a veteran-owned business.
On July 11, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit alleging four causes of action:
(1) defamation, (2) defamation per se, (3) breach of contract, and (4) intentional infliction
of emotional distress. Dkt. 1, at 5–7. That same day, Plaintiffs filed an Ex Parte Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction seeking to enjoin Tucker’s
behavior as this case progresses. Dkt. 2.
As noted, the Court already granted Plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining
order contained within their pending Motion. The Court’s decision issued July 7, 17, 2024,
and enjoined Tucker from:
(1) contacting MGI employees, Kyle Black, and Michelle Black other than
through legal counsel; (2) making false statements to MGI employees, MGI
affiliates, law enforcement agencies, other state or federal government
entities, and other third persons regarding MGI, its affiliates, and Black; and
(3) threatening to pursue criminal prosecution against Black and MGI unless
MGI agrees to pay a severance payment.
Dkt. 7, at 11.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER – 2

The Court entered the TRO Order ex parte. It did so because, even after having been
contacted by legal counsel, Tucker remained undeterred in his efforts to bring down MGI
and Black. In fact, his behavior appeared to escalate. Id. at 8–9. Thus, the Court found an
ex parte issuance was appropriate. However, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, the
Court’s order could only last fourteen days. For this reason, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to
serve Tucker with the Court’s order immediately and it scheduled a hearing so that Tucker
would have an opportunity to be heard. Id. at 11. Plaintiffs served Tucker with all relevant
documents. Dkt. 9.
On July 30, 2024, the Court held a hearing for the purpose of allowing Tucker an
opportunity to respond to the TRO Order and to decide how to proceed. Tucker did not
appear or respond in any way. Plaintiffs requested that the Court extend the TRO Order
until such time that a full hearing on its request for a preliminary injunction could be held.
The Court agreed, extended the TRO Order under the same conditions as originally
instructed, and scheduled a hearing for September 25, 2024. Dkt. 10.
Shortly thereafter, Tucker filed a document entitled “Affidavit.” Dkt. 12. This
document is just that—an affidavit from Tucker. The affidavit contains Tucker’s recitation
of how he obtained employment with MGI, how he was terminated, and how Plaintiffs
have ruined his finances and owe him a severance package. See generally id. But Tucker’s
affidavit does not address Plaintiffs’ Complaint, nor does it respond to Plaintiffs’ Motion
for Preliminary Injunction or the Court’s findings in its TRO Order. Notably, near the end
of his affidavit, Tucker states that he will “gladly cease and desist” and that, because he

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER – 3

has “been able to express my concerns to the court, [he]’ll stand down.” Dkt. 12, at 3.1
At the hearing on September 25, 2024, Tucker did not appear.
Based upon the evidence and briefing in this case, the Court finds it appropriate to
convert its TRO Order into a preliminary injunction at this time.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order
(“TRO”) must establish “(1) that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) that he is likely
to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of
equities tips in his favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest.” CTIA-The
Wireless Ass’n v. City of Berkeley, 854 F.3d 1105, 1114 (9th Cir. 2017) (cleaned up)
(quoting Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)).
A key difference between a TRO and a preliminary injunction is its respective
duration. A TRO is typically for a limited time, while a preliminary injunction may extend
until the end of the lawsuit, which could be months, if not years. Innovation Law Lab v.
Nielsen, 310 F. Supp. 3d 1150, 1156 n.1 (D. Or. 2018).
IV. DISCUSSION
The Court already analyzed the Winter factors in its TRO Order and found Plaintiffs
had met their burden. See Dkt. 7, at 5–8. The Court will briefly summarize those findings
and why Tucker’s Affidavit does not change its prior analysis.
First, the Court found Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on each of their four claims—

1

The full extent of this document will be discussed in greater detail in the Court’s forthcoming order on
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER – 4

defamation, defamation per se, breach of contract, and intentional infliction of emotional
distress—because of Tucker’s action. Id. at 5–7. In his affidavit, Tucker does nothing to
rebuff Plaintiffs’ assertions or the Court’s findings.
Second, the Court found Plaintiffs will suffer reputational and business harm if
Tucker’s conduct is not enjoined. Id. at 7. Tucker did not address this factor.
Third, the Court found the balance of hardships tips in Plaintiffs’ favor because they
stood to lose business and their good reputation as a result of Tucker’s defamatory
statements and actions. Id. at 7–8. Tucker did not address this in his affidavit.
Fourth and finally, the Court found the public has an interest in protecting
businesses from harassment. Id. at 8. Tucker did not address this in his affidavit either.
The Court sees no reason to depart from its prior path. MGI and Black have carried
their burden as to all relevant factors sufficient to grant a preliminary injunction. And
despite an opportunity to respond, Tucker has not provided any information, testimony, or
evidence to dispel the Court’s findings. Thus, a preliminary injunction under the same
parameters as outlined in the Court’s TRO Order is warranted and appropriate.
V. CONCLUSION
The Court previously said that it would “hold in abeyance [Plaintiffs’] request for a
preliminary injunction until the Court has heard from Tucker.” Dkt. 7, at 9–10. The Court
then scheduled and held two hearings to give Tucker an opportunity to respond to
Plaintiffs’ Motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1).
Tucker’s only “response” in this case is severely lacking. He also chose not to
appear at either hearing. In sum, Tucker has failed to make any persuasive argument
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER – 5

regarding why a preliminary injunction should not issue at this stage. As a result, the Court
finds it appropriate to grant Plaintiffs’ request.
A preliminary injunction shall now issue. The parameters of this preliminary
injunction shall mirror those of the Court’s prior TRO Order. However, the injunction is
no longer limited in time and will last the duration of this lawsuit.
VI. ORDER
Now, therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 5) is GRANTED.
2. Tucker is hereby enjoined from: (1) contacting MGI employees, Kyle Black,
and Michelle Black other than through legal counsel; (2) making false
statements to MGI employees, MGI affiliates, law enforcement agencies,
other state or federal government entities, and other third persons
regarding MGI, its affiliates, and Black; and (3) threatening to pursue
criminal prosecution against Black and MGI unless MGI agrees to pay a
severance payment.
3. Plaintiffs shall serve this order on Tucker and file a certification of service
regarding the same.

DATED: September 26, 2024
_________________________
David C. Nye
Chief U.S. District Court Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER – 6