Johnson v. Experian Marketing Solutions
ORDER that the defendant may respond to the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction 7 on or before May 7, 2015 and the plaintiff may reply in support of his motion on or before May 18, 2015. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (DCD)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware
This matter is before the Court on the parties' statements of position
with respect to a briefing schedule on the plaintiff's motion for preliminary
injunction (filing 7). Filing 11; filing 12. The Court has considered the parties'
positions and is not persuaded that the matter requires the expedited
schedule that the plaintiff requests.
The only specific reason identified by the plaintiff as warranting the
extremely accelerated briefing schedule that he proposes is that he will be
starting with his new employer on May 4, 2015, "at which point Defendant
will take the position that he is in breach of the Noncompete Agreements
referenced in the Amended Complaint. Thus, Plaintiff requests the matter be
resolved before or by that date." Filing 12 at 2. But the Court will not—nor
has it been asked to—resolve the merits of the plaintiff's declaratory
judgment claim before May 4. The plaintiff's motion only asks the Court to
enjoin the defendant's efforts to enforce any non-compete agreements—and
even if that motion is found to have merit, the defendant will still take the
position that as of May 4, the plaintiff will be in breach of the noncompetition agreements.
In short, the Court is not convinced that the plaintiff's motion for
preliminary injunction must be resolved before May 4, 2015. And the
procedural posture of this case, and the plaintiff's request for injunctive
relief, presents important questions of comity, federalism, and jurisdiction
that must be fully addressed by the parties and the Court.
Accordingly, the Court will direct the defendant to respond to the
plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction (filing 7) on or before May 7,
2015. The plaintiff may reply in support of his motion on or before May 18. In
doing so, the parties should address the status, and significance, of Experian
Mktg. Solutions v. Erwin, No. 2015-CH-06247, currently pending before
Judge Martin in Cook County, Illinois Circuit Court. In that regard, the
parties should also discuss the applicability of any abstention doctrine that
might be relevant. See, e.g., Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277 (1995);
Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800
(1976); Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).
IT IS ORDERED:
The defendant may respond to the plaintiff's motion for
preliminary injunction (filing 7) on or before May 7, 2015.
The plaintiff may reply in support of his motion on or
before May 18, 2015.
Dated this 24th day of April, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
John M. Gerrard
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?