TrueBlue Inc v. Foster et al
Filing
29
Memorandum Opinion and Order denying 11 Application for Entry of Temporary Injunction. (Ordered by Judge Jane J. Boyle on 11/26/2018) (ykp)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
TRUEBLUE, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM R. FOSTER, III,
AND CHAD C. GIBSON,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-CV-1424-B
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff TrueBlue, Inc.’s Application for Entry of Temporary Injunction
(Doc. 11), filed October 2, 2018. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the Motion.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff TrueBlue alleges that two of its former employees—Defendants William R. Foster, III
and Chad C. Gibson—violated their non-compete agreements when they went to work for Electrical
Talent, LLC. Doc. 11, Pl.’s Appl., 1, 3. While all parties have agreed that arbitration of this dispute
is proper, TrueBlue requested that this Court enter an injunction against Defendants prior to
dismissal. Doc. 9, Pl.’s Resp., 1. Specially, TrueBlue requested that Defendants:
a. refrain from working for Electrical Talent, LLC for 12 months;
b. return and/or destroy all TrueBlue information and material that they retained;
c. be barred from disclosing or using TrueBlue confidential information;
d. not interfere with TrueBlue’s employment agreements with its employees; and
-1-
e. not solicit TrueBlue clients for 12 months.
Doc. 11, Pl.’s Appl., 6. After briefing was filed by both sides, the Court held an evidentiary hearing
on November 20, 2018, and took testimony from Defendants and a TrueBlue representative.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
To obtain a preliminary injunction, a party must show: (1) a substantial likelihood that the
party will prevail on the merits; (2) a substantial threat that the party will suffer irreparable injury
if the injunction is not granted; (3) the party’s threatened injury outweighs the threatened harm to
defendants; and (4) granting the preliminary injunction will not disserve the public interest. See, e.g.,
Bluefield Water Ass’n v. City of Starkville, 577 F.3d 250, 252–53 (5th Cir. 2009). A preliminary
injunction is an “extraordinary” remedy and is not granted “unless the party seeking it has clearly
carried the burden of persuasion on all four requirements.” Id. at 253 (internal quotations omitted).
III.
ANALYSIS
Here, TrueBlue has failed to met its heavy burden on the first element. In particular, the noncompete as written is ambiguous. The non-compete prohibits former employees from working for a
TrueBlue competitor located in “any area within 25 miles” of Defendants’ former TrueBlue office,
but fails to specify how that distance is measured. Doc. 11-2, Non-Compete, 1. Courts diverge in how
to calculate distance when a covenant lacks the express language, but many resolve such ambiguities
against the drafter. See e.g., Rite-Aid of South Carolina, Inc. v. Cantrell, 336 S.E.2d 726, 726–27 (S.C.
Ct. App. 1985) (collecting cases). Thus, because Electrical Talent is located more than 25 road-miles
away from the TrueBlue office, Doc. 15, Defs.’ Resp., 7, TrueBlue has not met its burden to show
-2-
that Defendants are violating the non-compete by working at Electrical Talent.
In addition, the evidence presented at the hearing did not convince the Court that
Defendants had taken or used confidential information in violation of the non-compete. TrueBlue
presented insufficient evidence that Defendants had actively solicited TrueBlue clients. And
TrueBlue presented no concrete evidence that Defendants had retained any other TrueBlue
information or attempted to hire away current TrueBlue employees.
As such, for all relief requested, TrueBlue has failed to clearly carry its burden of persuasion
on the first element—substantial likelihood of success. Because TrueBlue must carry its burden for
all four elements, the Court hereby DENIES the Motion.
IV.
CONCLUSION
As such, Plaintiff TrueBlue’s Application for Entry of Temporary Injunction (Doc. 11) is
DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
SIGNED: November 26, 2018.
_________________________________
JANE J. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?