Randt Recycling Technologies, Inc. et al v. Lee's Oil Service, LLC et al

Filing 18

ORDER granting 2 Motion for TRO (Written Opinion). Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 8/12/2011. (PJM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 11-2226(DSD/LIB)
Randt Recycling Technologies,
Inc., a Minnesota corporation,
and Lubrication Technologies,
Inc., a Minnesota corporation,
Plaintiffs,
ORDER

v.
Lee’s Oil Service, LLC, a
Minnesota Limited liability
company, Lee E. Randt, Darren
L. Randt, Jessica A. Randt,
and Ronald Kern,
Defendants.

Francis J. Rondoni, Esq., Jeffrey D. Bores, Esq. and
Chestnut Cambronne, P.A., 17 Washington Avenue North,
Suite 300, Minneapolis, MN 55401, counsel for plaintiffs.
Gregory R. Anderson, Esq. and Anderson, Larson, Hanson &
Sanders, PLLP, P.O. Box 130, Willmar, MN 56201, counsel
for defendants.

This matter came before the court on August 12, 2011, upon the
motion by plaintiffs Randt Recycling Technologies, Inc. (Randt
Recycling) and Lubrication Technologies, Inc. for a temporary
restraining order (TRO) against Lee’s Oil Service, LLC, Lee E.
Randt, Darren L. Randt, Jessica A. Randt and Ronald Kern. Based on
a review of the file, record and proceedings herein, and for the
following reasons, the court grants the motion.

BACKGROUND
This dispute arises out of the sale of the assets of Randt Oil
Company by Lee E. Randt to defendants in 2005.

Pursuant to an

Asset Purchase Agreement, Lee Randt sold “all contract rights with
suppliers and customers,” all of his interest “in trade names
including the names Randt Oil Company and similar proprietary
rights,” “[a]ll customer lists and vendor lists including addresses
of each customer and vendor” and “all government licenses.” See V.
Compl. Ex. A. § 1.1.
Recycling.

See Ex. C.

The EPA number was transferred to Randt
The only assets excluded were “cash and

deposits in bank account,” “prepaid taxes and insurance,” “accounts
receivable” and “used filters, absorbents, and anti-freeze.”
§

1.2.

Thereafter,

Randt

Recycling

employed

the

Id.

individual

defendants.
In May and June 2011, defendants downloaded confidential,
proprietary customer and price lists and a complete sales report.
In May, June and July 2011, defendants quit working for Randt
Recycling and became employees of Lee’s Oil Service.
began servicing the customers of Randt Recycling.

Defendants

They told Randt

Recycling customers that it had gone out of business.

See Houle

Decl ¶¶ 3–5, Greer Decl. ¶¶ 3–17.

Defendants also used the EPA

license number of Randt Recycling.

See Houle Decl. Exs. B–C.

On August 4, 2011, plaintiffs filed a verified complaint
alleging violation of § 43 of the Lanham Act, the Minnesota Uniform

2

Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Minnesota Uniform Trade Secrets
Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, as well as several other
common law claims.

Plaintiffs move for a TRO.

On August 12, 2011,

the court heard argument; all parties were represented by counsel.
In accordance with the grant of the motion following argument, the
court now addresses the motion.

DISCUSSION
A TRO is an extraordinary equitable remedy, and the movant
bears the burden of establishing its propriety.
v. Lewis, 346 F.3d 841, 844 (8th Cir. 2003).

See Watkins Inc.

The court considers

four factors in determining whether a TRO should issue: (1) the
threat of irreparable harm to the movant in the absence of relief,
(2) the balance between that harm and the harm that the relief may
cause the non-moving party, (3) the likelihood of the movant’s
ultimate success on the merits and (4) the public interest.

See

Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C.L. Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th
Cir. 1981) (en banc).
I.

Irreparable Harm
Plaintiffs argue that defendants’ use of proprietary customer

information and false statements about Randt Recycling damages its
goodwill.

To show irreparable harm, “a party must show that the

harm is certain and great and of such imminence that there is a
clear and present need for equitable relief.”
3

Iowa Utils. Bd. v.

F.C.C., 109 F.3d 418, 425 (8th Cir. 1996).
goodwill qualifies as irreparable harm.”
defendants’

false

representations

“[P]otential loss of
Id. at 426.

and

use

of

Based on

proprietary

information, the court finds that plaintiffs have demonstrated that
they are likely to suffer irreparable harm to their goodwill
without

equitable

relief.

Moreover,

where

as

here,

the

misrepresentations have a tenancy to deceive, harm is presumed in
the context of violation of § 43 of the Lanham Act.

See Black

Hills Jewelry Mfg. Co. v. Gold Rush, Inc., 633 F.2d 746, 753 (8th
Cir. 1980).
II.

Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of plaintiffs.

Balance of Harms
The court has already determined that plaintiffs’ reputation

and goodwill are harmed by defendants’ acts. Balanced against that
harm is the harm to defendants’ ability to operate Lee’s Oil
Service. Such harm is lessened, however, because Lee’s Oil Service
may

continue

to

operate

and

compete

lawfully.

self-infliction of harm further lessens the weight.

Defendants’
See Anytime

Fitness, Inc. v. Reserve Holdings, LLC, No. 08-4095, 2008 WL
5191853, at *7 (D. Minn. Oct. 8, 2008).

Therefore, this factor

weighs in favor of plaintiffs.
III.

Likelihood of Success on the Merits
The court next considers the “most significant” Dataphase

factor: likelihood that the movant will prevail on the merits.
S & M Constructors, Inc. v. Foley Co., 959 F.2d 97, 98 (8th Cir.

4

1992).

In this case, the unrefuted evidence offered by plaintiffs

suggests that they are likely to prevail on the merits of their
Lanham Act, trade secret, deceptive trade and contract claims.1
Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of plaintiffs.
IV.

Public Interest
There

is

agreements.

a
There

public
also

unrestrained competition.

interest
is

a

in

upholding

public

interest,

contractual
however,

in

Here, it appears that defendants are

engaged in unfair competition.

Therefore, the public interest

factor favors plaintiffs, and based upon a balancing of the four
Dataphase factors, a TRO is warranted.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, based on the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order

[Doc. No. 2] is granted;
2.

Defendants, their agents, employees, and other firms or

corporations acting or claiming to act on defendants’ behalf, or in
concert or participation with defendants are hereby restrained
from:

1

By listing these claims, the court does not suggest that
plaintiffs’ other claims lack merit, but merely notes that
plaintiffs are likely to succeed these claims.
Cf. United
Healthcare Ins. Co. v. AdvancePCS, 316 F.3d 737, 742–43 (8th Cir.
2002).
5

a.

Using or disclosing any of plaintiffs’ confidential,

proprietary and trade secret information and documents;
b.

Using the EPA number of Randt Recycling;

c.

Engaging in business operations that directly or

indirectly derive from defendants’ wrongful conduct,
including, but not limited to, all contact with the
following customers of plaintiffs: Dakota Westmoreland;
Dickinson Tire Service; Stallion Oil Services; Basin
Hydraulic Co, LLC; Nelson International; Continental
Resources;

West

Plains

Implement;

Trotter

Home

Construction;
d.

Making false representations about the status of

Randt Recycling;
3.

Defendants shall immediately return all of plaintiffs’

confidential,

proprietary

and

trade

secret

information

and

documents and all copies thereof;
4.

Plaintiffs shall provide security to defendants in the

form of a bond or deposit of cash with the Clerk of Court in the
amount of $5,000; and
5.
Dated:

This order shall remain in effect for fourteen days.
August 12, 2011
s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court

6