Inter/National Rental Insurance Services, Inc. d/b/a USI Rental Specialties v. Albrecht

Filing 41

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE for 30 Report and Recommendations, GRANTING IN PART 10 Motion for TRO, filed by Inter/National Rental Insurance Services Inc, DENYING 6 Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Gerald Albrecht, for 24 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Richard A. Schell on 9/28/2012. (baf, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION

INTER/NATIONAL RENTAL
INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. d/b/a
USI RENTAL SPECIALTIES
Plaintiff,
v.
GERALD “GUS” ALBRECHT,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CASE NO. 4:11–CV–00853

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Came on for consideration the reports of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action,
this matter having been heretofore referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636. On February 22, 2012, a hearing was held before the Magistrate Judge on Plaintiff’s
Emergency Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 10). On
February 28, 2012, the report of the Magistrate Judge was entered containing proposed findings of
fact and recommendations that Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 6) be DENIED,
that Plaintiff’s Emergency Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction
(Dkt. 10) be GRANTED in part and that the district court enter a temporary restraining order
preventing Defendant from continuing to breach his covenant not to compete (see Dkt. 24).

1

Then, on March 12, 2012, the Magistrate Judge held an evidentiary hearing regarding
Plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunction and, on March 14, 2012, issued a report containing
proposed findings of fact and recommendations that Plaintiff’s Emergency Application for
Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 10) be GRANTED in part and that
the district court enter a preliminary injunction order preventing Defendant from breaching his
covenant not to compete (see Dkt. 30). The terms of the recommended preliminary injunction
slightly modified the Magistrate Judge’s original recommendation as to the temporary restraining
order.
Defendant timely filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s February 28, 2012 report, and
Plaintiff filed its response to those objections (see Dkts. 29 and 33). Defendant also timely filed
objections to the Magistrate Judge’s March 14, 2012 report, and Plaintiff filed its response (see Dkts.
35 and 38).
The court has made a de novo review of the objections raised by Defendant, as well as
Plaintiff’s responses, and to the extent Defendant’s objections were not otherwise made moot by the
Magistrate Judge’s second report regarding the preliminary injunction, is of the opinion that the
findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and the objections of Defendant are without
merit. Therefore, the court hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge as
the findings and conclusions of this court.
Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 6) is DENIED, Plaintiff’s Emergency
Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 10) is GRANTED

2

in part and the court shall enter a preliminary injunction order preventing Defendant from breaching
his covenant not to compete.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
.

SIGNED this the 28th day of September, 2012.

_______________________________
RICHARD A. SCHELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3