Team Housing Solutions, Inc. v. Vick et al
ORDER denying Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction 12 and denying Plaintiffs Supplemental Motion for Preliminary Injunction 28 . Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 1/8/2014 (scp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
TEAM HOUSING SOLUTIONS, INC.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-170-KS-MTP
BEVERLY VICK, et al.
For the reasons stated below and in a bench opinion provided on January 7,
2014, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction  and denies
Plaintiff’s Supplemental Motion for Preliminary Injunction .
To obtain a preliminary injunction, a “plaintiff must establish four elements: (1)
a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat that the
movant will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is denied; (3) that the threatened
injury outweighs any damage that the injunction might cause the defendant; and (4)
that the injunction will not disserve the public interest.” Jackson Women’s Health Org.
v. Currier, 760 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2014). “ A p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n i s a n
extraordinary remedy that should not be granted unless the party seeking it has
clearly carried the burden of persuasion on all four requirements.” Dennis Melancon,
Inc. v. City of New Orleans, 703 F.3d 262, 268 (5th Cir. 2012).
misappropriation of trade secrets, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to clearly
establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. Each Defendants’ testimony
indicated that they had not stolen, used, or disclosed any information obtained through
their employment or association with Plaintiff. In fact, the Vick Defendants testified
that they were either unable or did not know how to copy, forward, download, or
otherwise remove any pertinent information from Plaintiff’s computer system. Plaintiff
offered no evidence whatsoever to contradict Defendants’ testimony on these issues.
With respect to Plaintiff’s claims related to Defendants’ alleged breach of
contract, the Court first finds that Plaintiff failed to clearly establish a substantial
likelihood of success on the merits as to Defendants Quincy and Tamara Reese, who
denied entering any non-disclosure or non-compete agreement. Plaintiff admitted that
Tamara Reese had not entered into a non-disclosure and non-compete contract. As for
Quincy Reese, Plaintiff merely provided its representative’s declaration that he had
signed a non-disclosure agreement, rather than a copy of the actual contract. This is
not sufficient to demonstrate that Quincy Reese entered into a non-disclosure or noncompete contract.
As for the breach of contract claims against Defendants Gary and Beverly Vick,
the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to clearly demonstrate that there exists a
substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is denied, or that the
threatened injury to Plaintiff outweighs the damage an injunction may cause to
Defendants. Plaintiff only provided evidence that Defendants had obtained one and a
half contracts that may have otherwise gone to Plaintiff. Those contracts were obtained
through a bid process, which suggests that it was not certain Plaintiff would have
obtained them in the first place, and that it is not certain Defendants will continue to
obtain contracts from the customer in question. Out of the approximately one hundred
fifty clients Defendants have serviced over the past two years, only one does business
with Plaintiff. Plaintiff provided no evidence that it had lost good will, or that
Defendants have defamed it in the corporate housing marketplace.
Plaintiff apparently argues that the breach of a non-compete agreement
necessarily constitutes an irreparable injury, or that the Vick Defendants’ breach of the
non-compete agreement will inevitably cause irreparable injury. The Court disagrees.
A “preliminary injunction will not be issued simply to prevent the possibility of some
remote future injury. A presently existing actual threat must be shown.” Cardoni v.
Prosperity Bank, Civil Action H-14-1946, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176596, at *15 (S.D.
Tex. Dec. 23, 2014). Plaintiff must show “a significant threat of injury from the
impending action, that the injury is imminent, and that money damages would not
fully repair the harm.” Brink’s v. Patrick, No. 3:14-CV-775-B, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
87436, at *18 (N.D. Tex. June 27, 2014). “While courts are willing to entertain a loss
of customers or goodwill as a harm, a movant must come forward with evidence that
such an injury is irreparable by showing that the loss cannot be measured in money
damages.” Id. at *18-*19. In short, Plaintiff must provide evidence of a substantial
threat of irreparable harm, regardless of whether it establishes that Defendants
violated a non-compete agreement. Id. at *20.
Here, Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that Defendants had stolen, disclosed, or
otherwise misused any confidential information, and “when there is no misuse of
confidential information, irreparable harm is not presumed.” Cardoni, 2014 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 176596 at *15. Likewise, Plaintiff only presented evidence that Defendants had
obtained one and a half contracts in competition with Plaintiff, and the amount of
profit lost from those contracts can be easily calculated and reduced to money damages.
Finally, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to provide any evidence of a
conspiracy among the individual Defendants to steal Plaintiff’s confidential
information or for any other nefarious reason.
For these reasons and those provided in the Court’s bench opinion, the Court
denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction  and denies Plaintiff’s
Supplemental Motion for Preliminary Injunction .
The Court instructs the parties to contact the Magistrate Judge to schedule a
case management conference.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this 8th day of January, 2015.
s/ Keith Starrett
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?