ENV Tech v. Suchard

Filing 83

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. Defendant Suchard enjoined and restrained pursuant to the terms of this order (see attached). Bond previously posted by EnvTech shall apply to this preliminary injunction. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 11/1/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

ENVTECH, INC.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
TALMOR SUCHARD, SENTRO
)
TECHNOLOGIES, LTD, and SENTRO
)
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________________ )

3:11-cv-00523-HDM-WGC
ORDER

17
Plaintiff EnvTech (“EnvTech”)has filed an amended complaint
18
asserting multiple claims against defendants Talmor Suchard
19
(“Suchard”), Sentro Technologies LTD, and Sentro Technologies, LLC
20
(“Sentro Nevada”).

Plaintiff has also filed a motion for

21
preliminary injunction (#47), proposed interim injunctive relief
22
(#73), and on October 31, 2012, a “Request for Urgent Entry of
23
Injunctive Relief” (#78).

On October 31, 2012, the court entered a

24
temporary restraining order enjoining and restraining Suchard from
25
sending out or transmitting any letters or other forms of
26
communication to oil refineries disclosing EnvTech’s proprietary
27
chemical blends and cleaning processes, or other confidential,
28
1

1

proprietary, and trade secret information belonging to EnvTech.

2

The court thereafter conducted a telephonic hearing on the Request

3

for immediate injunctive relief (#78).

4

Factual Background

5

This order follows.

EnvTech claims to be the “world’s primary provider” of

6

chemical cleaning solutions to oil and gas refineries.

7

80 percent of the market for cleaning and neutralization of “HF

8

Alkylation” units – accounting for 40-60 percent of its business –

9

and with a “significant presence in other types of unit cleaning,”

10

EnvTech bases its success on its proprietary chemical formula and

11

processes that it claims no other company has been able to

12

duplicate.

13

refinery process, and they are not in all refineries.

Controlling

HF Alkylation units are a small part of the overall

14

Suchard is an Israeli citizen and former EnvTech employee.

15

Prior to working for EnvTech from 2005 to 2011, Suchard spent seven

16

years in the oil and gas refinery business.

17

Suchard’s job responsibilities at EnvTech included visiting

18

clients, pitching work, and overseeing the cleaning processes, and

19

he had access to EnvTech’s proprietary chemical formula and

20

cleaning process.

21

time was spent in chemical cleaning of HF Alkylation units.

22

Suchard admits he cleaned other types of units, he claims he did so

23

only a few times and was not in charge of those projects.

24

however, produced evidence demonstrating that Suchard was also

25

involved in drafting proposals for decontamination of heat

26

exchangers, vapor phase cleaning unrelated to HF Alkylation, and

27

cleaning of vacuum towers, crude oil units, crude oil exchangers,

28

desalters, FCC Units, and heavy oil units. (Pl. Reply to Mot.

Suchard asserts that the vast majority of his

2

While

EnvTech,

1
2

Prelim. Inj. Exs. 4, 7-8; Suchard Decl. in Support of Removal ¶ 3).
As part of his employment, Suchard signed an at-will

3

employment agreement (“EA”) and a “Trade Secrets and

4

Non-Competition Agreement” (“TSNCA”).

5

Suchard to maintain the confidentiality of EnvTech’s trade secrets

6

and proprietary information, to not compete against it, and to not

7

solicit EnvTech clients.

8

The agreements required

Suchard was terminated from EnvTech in May 2011.

While still

9

employed by EnvTech, and after his termination up to the present

10

time, Suchard allegedly used and is using EnvTech’s confidential

11

and proprietary information to compete against it, including

12

soliciting EnvTech’s clients and creating two competing businesses.

13

Suchard does not deny that he has created oil and refinery cleaning

14

businesses, but denies that they compete with EnvTech, denies that

15

he has done any work for EnvTech clients, and denies using any of

16

EnvTech’s confidential and trade secret information.

17

Preliminary Injunction Standard

18

“An injunction is a matter of equitable discretion and is an

19

extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing

20

that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.”

21

v. Carlton, 626 F.3d 462, 469 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation

22

marks omitted).

23

Earth Island Inst.

To obtain a preliminary injunction, EnvTech must show: (1) it

24

will probably prevail on the merits; (2) it will likely suffer

25

irreparable injury if relief is denied; (3) the balance of equities

26

tips in its favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest.

27

Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 129 S.

28

Ct. 365, 374 (2008).
3

1

Alternatively, an injunction may issue under the “sliding

2

scale” approach if there are serious questions going to the merits

3

and the balance of hardships tips sharply in EnvTech’s favor, so

4

long as EnvTech still shows a likelihood of irreparable injury and

5

that an injunction is in the public interest.

6

Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011).

7

“Serious questions are those which cannot be resolved one way or

8

the other at the hearing on the injunction.”

9

Angeles County, 339 F.3d 920, 926-27 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal

10

quotation marks omitted) (citing Republic of the Philippines v.

11

Marcos, 862 F.2d 1355, 1362 (9th Cir. 1988)).

12

promise a certainty of success, nor even present a probability of

13

success, but must involve a ‘fair chance of success on the

14

merits.’”

15

I. Likelihood of Success/Serious Questions

16

Alliance for the

Bernhardt v. Los

They “need not

Marcos, 862 F.2d at 1362.

While employed by EnvTech, Suchard signed agreements to not

17

disclose EnvTech’s confidential, proprietary, and trade secret

18

information, (TSNCA §§ 1.3, 1.4, 1.6, 1.7; EA ¶ 18), and to not

19

“engage or participate in any competitive activity relating to the

20

subject matter of his ... hiring by” EnvTech, (TSNCA § 1.8).

21

review of the record indicates that these agreements are likely

22

enforceable.

23

the enforceable agreements.

A

It also indicates that Suchard is likely violating

24

The most recent filings by EnvTech present evidence

25

demonstrating threats by Suchard to immediately disclose

26

confidential, proprietary and trade secret information belonging to

27

EnvTech to at least 100 refineries.

28

contains persuasive evidence that Suchard has engaged and continues
4

In addition, the record

1

to engage in competitive activities relating to the subject matter

2

of his hiring – that is, Suchard is competing or attempting to

3

compete with EnvTech in the cleaning of oil and gas refinery units.

4

Significantly, while employed by EnvTech, he cleaned and/or drafted

5

proposals for cleaning for several different types of units.

6

Accordingly, pending full review of EnvTech’s motion for

7

preliminary injunction, the court concludes that EnvTech has shown

8

at least serious questions going to, if not a likelihood of success

9

on, the merits of its claim that Suchard is violating his

10

employment agreements.

11

II. Likelihood of Irreparable Harm

12

The disclosure of confidential trade secret information would

13

cause immediate and irreparable harm to EnvTech.

14

the evidence of Suchard’s conduct, the court also concludes that

15

Suchard’s competitive activities threaten to undermine EnvTech’s

16

goodwill and market share and would also therefore result in

17

irreparable harm.

18

III. Balance of Hardships

19

Further, given

EnvTech’s potential loss of confidential, proprietary, and

20

trade secret information and of market share greatly outweighs

21

Suchard’s inability to work in the field of oil and gas refinery

22

cleaning insofar as it relates to work he performed for EnvTech,

23

particularly in light of the most recent filing reflecting efforts

24

by Suchard to disclose confidential, proprietary and trade secret

25

information that belongs to EnvTech.

26

the balance of hardships tips in EnvTech’s favor.

27
28
5

Accordingly, the court finds

1
2

IV. Public Interest
“The public interest inquiry primarily addresses impact on

3

non-parties rather than parties.”

4

Dist. Court, 303 F.3d 959, 974 (9th Cir. 2002).

5

potentially impacted by an injunction would be clients and

6

potential clients of EnvTech and Suchard.

7

fewer options for chemical cleaning and may have to pay more for

8

such services.

9

chemical cleaning services exist and are able to thrive in part

Sammartano v. First Judicial
The nonparties

Those clients would have

On the other hand, the businesses that provide

10

because of trade secret protection.

11

secrets would greatly undermine EnvTech’s business, would

12

discourage innovation in the field, and could eventually reduce the

13

number of businesses engaged in the cleaning of oil and gas

14

refineries.

15

interest favors the protection of EnvTech’s confidential and trade

16

secret information and therefore favors the issuance of a

17

preliminary injunction.

18

Conclusion

19

Failure to protect trade

On balance, the court concludes that the public

EnvTech has shown a likelihood of success on, or at the very

20

least serious questions going to, the merits of its contractual

21

claims, that it faces likely irreparable harm in the absence of an

22

injunction, that the balance of hardships tips sharply in its

23

favor, and that the public interest favors an injunction.

24

Accordingly, a preliminary injunction is properly issued pending a

25

full hearing on EnvTech’s motion for preliminary injunction.

26

is particularly justified because of Suchard’s conduct, which has

27

led to Suchard’s counsel’s request to withdraw as counsel and the

28

likelihood that the court will grant the withdrawal and of
6

This

1

necessity have to vacate the November 7, 2012, date set for the

2

hearing on the original motion for injunctive relief and reset it

3

at a future time when Suchard has obtained new counsel or

4

represents himself.

5

Procedure 65 the court hereby enters its order enjoining and

6

restraining defendant Talmor Suchard and his agents, assigns, or

7

affiliates from the following:

8

1.

Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Using in any way, or disclosing to anyone, any of

9

EnvTech’s confidential and proprietary information and

10

trade secrets, including but not limited to EnvTech’s

11

strategic planning information, the chemical formulas it

12

has developed to service its customers, identities or

13

information on its customers including attributes and

14

preferences, and the unique processes and procedures

15

EnvTech has developed to service its customers;

16

2.

Sending out or transmitting any letters or other forms of

17

communication to oil refineries stating that EnvTech’s

18

chemicals contain unspecified carcinogens;

19

3.

Holding himself out to anyone as affiliated with EnvTech

20

or use EnvTech’s name, trademarks, literature or

21

documents for any purpose whatsoever;

22

4.

Engaging in any type of chemical cleaning business

23

related to activities Suchard participated in while

24

employed by EnvTech, including:

25

a. HF Alkylation Unit Cleaning;

26

a. Decontamination of Heat Exchangers;

27

b. Cleaning of Vacuum Towers;

28

c. Cleaning of Crude Oil Units;
7

1

d. Cleaning of Crude Oil Exchangers;

2

e. Cleaning of Desalters;

3

f. Cleaning of FCC Units;

4

g. Vapor Phase Cleaning;

5

h. Cleaning of Heavy Oil Units; and

6

5.

Soliciting or encouraging any person or entity with whom

7

EnvTech has done business while Suchard was employed with

8

EnvTech to cease doing business with EnvTech and to do

9

business with defendants, the Suchard affiliates, or any

10
11
12

other third party.
The bond previously posted by EnvTech shall apply to this
preliminary injunction.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

DATED: This 1st day of November, 2012.

15
16

____________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8