EDIBLE GIFTS PLUS, LLC et al v. RAPPEL et al

Filing 14

OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Anne E. Thompson on 12/7/2015. (mmh)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
EDIBLE GIFTS PLUS, LLC and
MELANIE OLLIVETT DIZDAREVIC,

Civ. No. 15-7904

Plaintiffs,

OPINION

v.
MARGO RAPPEL and XYZ COMPANY,
Defendants.
MARGO RAPPEL,
Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
DINO DIZDAREVIC and DARREN J.
KADY,
Third-Party Defendants.

THOMPSON, U.S.D.J.
This matter appears before the Court upon the motion of Plaintiffs Edible Gifts Plus, LLC
(“Edible Gifts Plus”) and Melanie Ollivett Dizdarevic (collectively “Plaintiffs”) for a preliminary
injunction against Defendant Margo Rappel (“Defendant”). (ECF No. 1-4). Defendant does not
oppose. (ECF No. 10). After considering the parties’ written submissions and without oral
argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 78.1(b), the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ motion.

1

BACKGROUND
Defendant was the original owner of Edible Gifts Plus, a company selling customized
baked goods and other edible items over the internet. (Compl. ¶ 14, ECF No. 1). On January 11,
2014, Defendant sold Edible Gifts Plus to Plaintiff Melanie Ollivett Dizdarevic. (Id. ¶ 16). As
part of the sale contract, Defendant agreed that for a period of ten years, she would not compete
with Edible Gifts Plus’s online edible gift business, either directly or indirectly. (Id. ¶ 24). Since
the sale closed on February 5, 2014, Dizdarevic has operated Edible Gifts Plus. (Id. ¶ 27).
However, shortly thereafter, Dizdarevic began to suspect that Defendant was operating a
competing business in violation of the parties’ non-compete clause. (Id. ¶ 43). Several vendors
stopped doing business with Edible Gifts Plus, seemingly due to their relationship with
Defendant, and Dizdarevic received some email communications about an online order that she
suspected were directed to Defendant, leading her to believe that Defendant was continuing to
sell online gifts. (Id. ¶¶ 47, 51).
On November 5, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendant, alleging claims of
breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and fraudulent
inducement. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant was operating a competing business
and had failed to satisfy other elements of the sale contract. (Id.). At the same time they filed
the complaint, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary
injunction to prevent Defendant from competing against Edible Gifts Plus. (Id.). Defendant
denies that she is operating a competing business and therefore did not oppose Plaintiff’s motion.
(ECF No. 10). Thus, by consent of the parties, a temporary restraining order was entered on
November 6, 2015. (ECF Nos. 8, 10). The motion for a preliminary injunction is presently
before the Court.

2

DISCUSSION
To obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party bears the burden of establishing that
(1) she is likely to succeed on the merits of the underlying litigation, (2) she is likely to suffer
irreparable injury in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) the balance of equities tips in her favor,
and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Ferring Pharms., Inc. v. Watson Pharms., Inc.,
765 F.3d 205, 210 (3d Cir. 2014). The primary purpose of a preliminary injunction is to
maintain the status quo pending a decision on the merits. See Acierno v. New Castle Cnty., 40
F.3d 645, 648 (3d Cir. 1994).
In this case, Defendant does not oppose the entry of preliminary injunctive relief. (See
Def.’s Br. 1, ECF No. 10). The parties have already consented to the entry of a temporary
restraining order, which has been in place since November 6, 2015. (ECF No. 8). Further, in her
response, Defendant does not argue that Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the four prerequisites to
entry of preliminary injunctive relief. Based on Defendant’s concessions, the court determines
that all four prerequisites to entry of preliminary injunctive relief have been satisfied.
Accordingly, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction will be granted.
A corresponding order follows.

/s/ Anne E. Thompson
ANNE E. THOMPSON, U.S.D.J.

3