NAC Foundation, LLC v. Jodoin

Filing 7

ORDER that 5 Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is GRANTED. Defendant is temporarily enjoined as enumerated in this order.FURTHER ORDERED that the Temporary Restraining Order shall remain in place until July 26, 2016, wit h a hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 6 ) to occur on July 26, 2016 at 10:00 A.M. in LV Courtroom 7D before Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro. Defendant shall file his Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Preli minary Injunction by the close of business on July 20, 2016. Moreover, Plaintiff shall file its Reply by the close of business on July 22, 2016.FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall serve this Order on Defendant by the close of business on July 1 5, 2016. To ensure Defendant receives timely notice of the hearing, Plaintiffs may, in addition to the requirements set forth in Rules 4 and 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, serve their motions, this Order, and all other pleadings filed t o date on Defendant by electronic mail. Failure to file proof of service by close of business on July 18, 2016 will result in the Court vacating the hearing and denying the Motion for Preliminary Injunction without prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 7/14/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

NAC FOUNDATION, LLC,
4

Plaintiff,

5

vs.

6

COREY JODOIN,
7

Defendant.

8

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:16-cv-01039-GMN-VCF
ORDER

9

Pending before the Court is the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, (ECF No. 5),

10
11

filed by Plaintiff NAC Foundation, LLC (“Plaintiff”). For the reasons set forth herein, the

12

Motion is GRANTED.

13

I.

14

BACKGROUND
This is a civil action against Defendant Corey Jodoin for breach of contract for purchase

15

of an interest in Plaintiff, for breach of a Non-Disclosure Agreement between the parties, for

16

breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in both contracts, for defamation,

17

and for intentional interference with contractual relations and perspective economic advantage.

18

(See Compl., ECF No. 1).

19

For the purposes of the instant Motion, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has “contacted

20

customers of [Plaintiff], contractors, and others, by use of Confidential Information of

21

[Plaintiff], for purposes of disparaging and defaming [Plaintiff] and its management, and of

22

intentionally interfering with the contracts and prospective business advantage of [Plaintiff].”

23

(Mot. for TRO 5:24–27, ECF No. 5). Further, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant used

24

Confidential Information to contact and convince a customer to attend a conference hosted by

25

Plaintiff “for the specific purpose of interfering with existing and prospective [customers] and
investors by publically declaring that [Plaintiff’s Product] was a ‘scam.’” (Id. 3:20–27).
Page 1 of 4

1

II.

LEGAL STANDARDS
“The underlying purpose of a TRO is to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable

2
3

harm before a preliminary injunction hearing may be held.” Jones v. H.S.B.C. (USA), 844 F.

4

Supp. 2d 1099, 1100 (S.D. Cal. 2012) (citing Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of

5

Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974)). “Temporary restraining orders

6

are governed by the same standard applicable to preliminary injunctions.” Quiroga v. Chen,

7

735 F. Supp. 2d 1226, 1228 (D. Nev. 2010).

8

A temporary restraining order may be issued if a plaintiff establishes: (1) likelihood of

9

success on the merits; (2) likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3)

10

that the balance of hardships tips in his favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest.

11

Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). “Injunctive relief [is] an

12

extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is

13

entitled to such relief.” Id. at 22. The Ninth Circuit has held that “‘serious questions going to

14

the merits’ and a hardship balance that tips sharply toward the plaintiff can support issuance of

15

an injunction, assuming the other two elements of the Winter test are also met.” Alliance for the

16

Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1132 (9th Cir. 2011).

17

In considering whether a preliminary injunction is warranted, a district court also relies

18

on the factors set forth in Winter. 555 U.S. at 20. However, a preliminary injunction may be

19

issued only after “a hearing in which the defendant is given a fair opportunity to oppose the

20

application” and sufficient time “to prepare for such opposition.” Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v.

21

Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70 of Alameda Cty., 415 U.S. 423, 433

22

(1974).

23

III.

24
25

DISCUSSION
The Court finds that Plaintiff is likely to prevail on the merits of its breach of contract

claim against Defendant based on the supporting Declaration to the Motion evidencing

Page 2 of 4

1

Defendant’s disclosure and use of Confidential Information in violation of the Contract and

2

Non-Disclosure Agreement between the parties. For the purposes of this Order, Confidential

3

Information shall mean “any information, including, without limitation, business technical,

4

financial and marketing information, that is written, oral or any other form, that a party

5

designates as being confidential or that, under the circumstances surrounding disclosure, should

6

be clear that it is confidential.” (Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement ¶ 1, Ex. 1-A to Mot. for

7

TRO, ECF No. 5-1).
The Court further finds that Defendant’s continued disparagement of Plaintiff and use of

8
9

Plaintiff’s Confidential Information will cause immediate and irreparable harm to Plaintiff

10

resulting in the loss of investors at “a critical threshold. . . in development and financing.”

11

(Mot. for TRO 4:12–13, ECF No. 5). Further, Defendant “is threatening [Plaintiff’s] ability to

12

obtain prospective customers [and] harming the goodwill [Plaintiff] has with its client base and

13

prospective clients, and is likely to irreparably harm [Plaintiff’s] business reputation.” (Id.

14

12:10–13); see also Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 841 (9th

15

Cir. 2001) (“Evidence of threatened loss of prospective customers or goodwill certainly

16

supports a finding of the possibility of irreparable harm.”).

17

IV.

18
19
20

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order

(ECF No. 5) is GRANTED. Defendant is temporarily enjoined as follows:
1.

Defendant, and anyone acting in concert with Defendant, shall be restrained from

21

disclosing Confidential Information or from using it for any purpose, including

22

but not limited to the purpose of disparaging or defaming Plaintiff, its principal

23

and affiliates, or interfering with Plaintiff’s, its principal’s or affiliates’

24

contractual and/or prospective economic relationships;

25

Page 3 of 4

1

2.

2
3

Defendant, and anyone acting in concert with Defendant, shall be restrained from
falsely holding themselves out as employees or agents of Plaintiff; and

3.

Defendants, and anyone acting in concert with Defendant, shall be restrained

4

from any and all contact with Plaintiff’s customers, investors, contractors, or any

5

other third party whose information was obtained via Plaintiff’s Confidential

6

Information.

7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Temporary Restraining Order shall remain in

8

place until July 26, 2016, with a hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF

9

No. 6) to occur on July 26, 2016 at 10:00 A.M. in LV Courtroom 7D before Chief Judge Gloria

10

M. Navarro. Defendant shall file his Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction

11

by the close of business on July 20, 2016. Moreover, Plaintiff shall file its Reply by the close

12

of business on July 22, 2016.

13

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall serve this Order on Defendant by the

14

close of business on July 15, 2016. To ensure Defendant receives timely notice of the hearing,

15

Plaintiffs may, in addition to the requirements set forth in Rules 4 and 5 of the Federal Rules of

16

Civil Procedure, serve their motions, this Order, and all other pleadings filed to date on

17

Defendant by electronic mail. Failure to file proof of service by close of business on July 18,

18

2016 will result in the Court vacating the hearing and denying the Motion for Preliminary

19

Injunction without prejudice.

20

14
DATED this _____ day of July, 2016.

21
22
23
24

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Judge

25

Page 4 of 4