Randt Recycling Technologies, Inc. et al v. Lee's Oil Service, LLC et al
Filing
41
ORDER granting in part 19 Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Written Opinion). Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 9/8/2011. (PJM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 11-2226(DSD/LIB)
Lube-Tech Liquid Recycling,
Inc. (f/k/a 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,
Ronald Kern and Elaine Randt,
Defendants.
Francis J. Rondoni, Esq., Jeffrey D. Bores, Esq., Gary K.
Luloff, Esq. and Chestnut Cambronne, PA, 17 Washington
Avenue North, Suite 300, Minneapolis, MN 55401, counsel
for plaintiffs.
Gregory R. Anderson, Esq., and Anderson, Larson, Hanson
& Saunders, PLLP, P.O. Box 130, Willmar, MN 56201,
counsel for defendants.
This matter came before the court on August 25, 2011, upon the
motion
by
plaintiffs
Lube-Tech
Liquid
Recycling,
Inc.1
and
Lubrication Technologies, Inc. for a preliminary injunction against
Lee’s Oil Service, LLC, Lee E. Randt, Darren L. Randt, Jessica A.
1
Subsequent to filing its motion for preliminary injunction,
plaintiff filed an amended complaint substituting Lube-Tech Liquid
Recycling, Inc. for Randt Recycling Technologies, Inc. See ECF No.
36.
Randt, Ronald Kern and Elaine Randt.2
Based on a review of the
file, record and proceedings herein, the court grants the motion in
part.
The
background
of
this
matter
is
fully
set
out
in
the
temporary restraining order issued on August 12, 2011. See ECF No.
18.
The parties present no additional facts relevant to the
court’s analysis under Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. C.L. Systems,
Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir. 1981) (en banc).
Accordingly,
for the reasons stated in the temporary restraining order, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.
Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction [Doc. No.
19] is granted in part;
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:
a.
Using or disclosing any of plaintiffs’ confidential,
proprietary and trade secret information and documents;
b.
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;
2
Plaintiffs added defendant Elaine Randt in their amended
complaint. See ECF No. 36.
2
Dickinson Tire Service; Stallion Oil Services; Basin
Hydraulic Co, LLC; Nelson International; Continental
Resources;
West
Plains
Implement;
Trotter
Home
Construction;
c.
Making false representations about Lube-Tech Liquid
Recycling, Inc. or Lubrication Technologies, Inc.;
3.
Defendants shall immediately return all of plaintiffs’
confidential,
proprietary
and
trade
secret
information
and
documents and all copies thereof, including, but not limited to,
all notes, records and historical data maintained by or in the
possession of Ronald Kern;
4.
Plaintiffs, their agents, employees, and other firms or
corporations acting or claiming to act on plaintiffs’ behalf, or in
concert or participation with plaintiffs are hereby restrained from
making false representations about Lee’s Oil Service, LLC, Lee E.
Randt, Darren L. Randt, Jessica A. Randt, Ronald Kern or Elaine
Randt;
5.
Plaintiffs
shall
provide
security
[Doc.
No.
23]
to
defendants in the form of a bond or deposit of cash with the Clerk
of Court in the amount of $5,000;
6.
Defendants shall provide security to plaintiffs in the
form of a bond or deposit of cash with the Clerk of Court in the
amount of $5,000; and
3
7.
This order shall remain in effect during the pendency of
this litigation, or until notice of this court.
Dated:
September 8, 2011
s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?