XPO Logistics, Inc. v. Bansal, et al

Filing 10

ORDER that Plaintiff's #4 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction is set for a hearing. Motion Hearing set for 2/25/2021 03:00 PM in Courtroom, 401 W Trade St, Charlotte, NC 28202 before District Judge Robert J. Conrad Jr. Defendant shall file a response to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction by close of business on 2/22/2021. Plaintiffs shall reply by close of business on by 2/24/2021. Signed by District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 2/17/2021. (brl)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:21-cv-46-RJC-DSC
XPO LOGISTICS, INC.,

s,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
DHRUV BANSAL,
Defendants.

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction. (Doc. Nos. 4–6.)
Plaintiff XPO Logistics, Inc. filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction on
February 11, 2021 against Defendant Dhruv Bansal. In the Motion, Plaintiff seeks a
Preliminary Injunction prohibiting Defendant from performing services for a competing
business in a business area of competition. (Doc. No. 4 at 1.) Plaintiff indicates that
Defendant was a previous employee of the Plaintiff, and that Defendant had since
agreed to work for a competitor in violation of his prior Confidential Information
Protection Agreement (CIPA) with the Plaintiff. (Id. at 1–2.)
On November 4, 2020, Plaintiff XPO Logistics, Inc. filed a Motion for a
Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction in state court. (Doc. No. 11 at 2.) On November 9, 2020, the state court issued a Temporary Restraining Order
(TRO) enjoining Defendant Bansal from violating the non-competition covenant in the
CIPA, and ruled that the TRO would remain in place until the Preliminary Injunction
1

Case 3:21-cv-00046-RJC-DSC Document 10 Filed 02/17/21 Page 1 of 3

hearing. (Doc. No. 1-1 at 44–45.) Defendant removed the case to federal court on
January 29, 2021. (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff’s brief states that Defendant has indicated
that the state court’s TRO expires 14 days after removal, while Plaintiff argues instead
that under Rule 65 this TRO does not expire within that timeframe. (Doc. No. 4 at 2.)
Whether or not the state court’s TRO expired after 14 days, this Court has the
power to issue a TRO of its own given that the case has been removed to federal court.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65. Based on a review of the docket, this Court agrees with the state
court that the Plaintiff has filed a verified complaint alleging that immediate and
irreparable injury will result to the movant before the Defendant can be heard in
opposition, and that Plaintiff has provided sufficient reasons that additional notice is
not required. Plaintiff has made a showing that Defendant signed a non-compete
agreement which barred him from working for a competitor within one year, and also
that less than one year later Defendant agreed to work for a competitor in an area of
competition with the Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 5; Doc. No. 1-1.)
Based on the evidence and allegations presented by Plaintiff, in the words of the
state court, Plaintiff has “demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its
breach of contract claim against Defendant Bansal and that the relief requested in the
Motion is necessary and appropriate to prevent irreparable and continuing harm to
XPO and is necessary for the protection of XPO’s rights during the course of litigation.”
(Doc. No. 1-1 at 45.) This Court agrees and will issue the same TRO, which will remain
in place until the Preliminary Injunction hearing, which this Court will set for
February 25, 2021.
2

Case 3:21-cv-00046-RJC-DSC Document 10 Filed 02/17/21 Page 2 of 3

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. Defendant Bansal is enjoined and restrained from violating the noncompetition covenant set forth in the Confidential Information Protection
Agreement by performing services for a Competing Business, including
Hub, in any area, division, or segment that competes with XPO;
2. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, this Order shall be binding on Defendant
Bansal, his agents, his attorneys, and those persons in active concert or
participation with Defendant Bansal who receive actual notice of this
Order;
3. This Order shall remain in effect until the hearing on the Motion for
Preliminary Injunction;
4. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Docs. Nos. 4–6) is set for a
hearing on February 25, 2021; and
5. Defendant shall file a Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary
Injunction (Docs. Nos. 4–6) by close of business on Monday, February 22.
Plaintiffs shall Reply by close of business on Wednesday, February 24.
SO ORDERED.

Signed: February 17, 2021

3

Case 3:21-cv-00046-RJC-DSC Document 10 Filed 02/17/21 Page 3 of 3