Global Control Systems, Inc. v. Luebbert et al

Filing 23

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction 9 as to Atlas, Alliant and Midwest. The Court withholds ruling on Plaintiff's motion as to Luebbert until an evidentiary hearing is held. Signed on 10/14/14 by Chief District Judge Greg Kays. (Francis, Alexandra) Modified on 10/14/2014 - added motion document number (Francis, Alexandra).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
GLOBAL CONTROL SYSTEMS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEREK LUEBBERT, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:14-CV-657-DGK

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Plaintiff Global Control Systems, Inc. (“Global”) has sued Defendants Derek Luebbert
(“Luebbert”), Atlas Industrial Solutions, LLC (“Atlas”), Midwest Controls, LLC (“Midwest”),
and Alliant Techsystems, Inc. (“Alliant”) for various claims related to Luebbert’s former
employment with Global and the business opportunities he has pursued since leaving Global.
Now before the Court is Global’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 9).
Global moves for a preliminary injunction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a) to
to enjoin: (1) Luebbert from “working or contracting for [Atlas,] Midwest, [Alliant] and any
other individual or entity in violation of the Employment Agreement, Settlement Agreement and
Amendment;” and (2) Midwest and Alliant from “employ[ing] or contracting with, or
contracting for the services of Luebbert and [Atlas] in violation of the Employment Agreement,
Settlement Agreement and Amendment.” (Doc. 10, at 18).
The Court denies Global’s motion as to Atlas, Alliant, and Midwest. First, Global’s
briefing occasionally references a proposed injunction against Atlas. Motions must “state with
particularity the grounds for seeking the order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1)(B). Specificity in the
request is especially necessary for the district court on a motion for a preliminary injunction,

because an order granting an injunction must “describe in reasonable detail . . . the act or acts
restrained or required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(1)(C). Because Global’s motion does not propose
a specific injunction against Atlas, and the Court cannot precisely tell what Global wants Atlas to
stop doing, the Court declines to issue an injunction against Atlas.
Next, Global moves for an injunction to stop Alliant and Midwest from working with
Luebbert and Atlas in contravention of various contracts and settlement agreements.

An

injunction is an extraordinary remedy and the movant—Global—bears the burden of establishing
the need for such relief. Lankford v. Sherman, 451 F.3d 496, 503 (8th Cir. 2006). However,
none of Global’s arguments focus on Alliant or Midwest; its arguments on each of the four
Dataphase factors relate solely to Luebbert. See Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C.L. Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d
109, 113 (8th Cir. 1981) (en banc) (outlining four factors for the district court to weigh in
considering preliminary injunctions). For instance, Global does not argue that it is likely to
succeed against Alliant or Midwest on the merits of any particular claim found in the Second
Amended Petition. Global falls well short of its burden with regard to both Alliant and Midwest.
See Lankford, 451 F.3d at 503. The Court denies this part of Global’s motion.
Finally, Global moves to enjoin Luebbert. Global’s motion fairly discusses the factual
and legal basis for seeking an injunction against Luebbert. But because Global and Luebbert
dispute facts material to this motion, the Court withholds ruling on Global’s motion as it pertains
to him. See United Healthcare Ins. Co. v. AdvancePCS, 316 F.3d 737, 744 (8th Cir. 2002)
(requiring the court to hold an evidentiary hearing before issuing a preliminary injunction where
the parties dispute material facts).

The Court will contact those parties to schedule an

evidentiary hearing.

2

Conclusion
For the reasons above, Global’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 9) is DENIED
as to Atlas, Alliant, and Midwest. The Court WITHHOLDS RULING on Global’s motion as to
Luebbert until an evidentiary hearing is held.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: October 14, 2014

/s/ Greg Kays
GREG KAYS, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

.