MUFG Union Bank, NA v. Tyler et al
Filing
57
ORDER denying Plaintiff's 5 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (PM)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
5
6
7
MUFG UNION BANK, N.A., a national
association,
8
Plaintiff,
v.
9
10
AARON TYLER, an individual, et al..,
13
14
ORDER DENYING PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
Defendants.
11
12
Case No. C17-1766RSM
THIS MATTER came before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
Dkt. #5. On November 28, 2017, this Court entered a Temporary Restraining Order against
15
Defendants. Dkt. #12. Plaintiff had alleged that a group of its former employees resigned en
16
masse after planning for several months to take trade secrets, documents and confidential
17
information that they are now utilizing to take business and unfairly compete with it. Dkt. #5.
18
19
20
Based on the record before it at that time, the Court found that Plaintiff had sufficiently
demonstrated that it was entitled to a TRO. Dkt. #12. The Court then scheduled a hearing on
21
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, on Thursday, December 7, 2017, at which time
22
Defendants were asked to Show Cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue. Id. The
23
24
25
Court heard oral arguments from the parties on December 7th, and allowed the submission of
additional documentary evidence for the Court’s consideration. The Court considered those
26
exhibits that were presented during the hearing, as well as those exhibits and briefing submitted
27
between the time the Court issued the TRO and heard oral argument. Dkts. #18-29, 34-48 and 51-
28
ORDER - 1
1
2
3
4
5
54. The Court then informed the parties that the Motion for Preliminary Injunction would be
DENIED. Dkt. #55. This written Order memorializes the oral ruling.
The Ninth Circuit has described the standards for deciding whether to grant a motion for a
preliminary injunction:
To obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party must show
either (1) a combination of probable success on the merits and
the possibility of irreparable injury, or (2) that serious questions
are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in its favor.
These formulations are not different tests but represent two
points on a sliding scale in which the degree of irreparable harm
increases as the probability of success on the merits decreases.
Under either formulation, the moving party must demonstrate a
significant threat of irreparable injury, irrespective of the
magnitude of the injury.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Big Country Foods, Inc. v. Bd. of Educ. of Anchorage Sch. Dist., 868 F.2d 1085, 1088 (9th Cir.
14
1989) (citations omitted). The speculative risk of a possible injury is not enough; the threatened
15
harm must be imminent. Caribbean Marine Services Co., Inc. v. Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th
16
17
18
19
Cir. 1988); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 65(b)(1)(A).
Based on the current record, the Court cannot make a determination at this time that
Plaintiff has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. Plaintiff has no evidence that
20
Defendants have secured any business that would have otherwise gone to Union Bank since the
21
date they left Plaintiff’s employment. Further, Defendants have submitted evidence that they are
22
not actively soliciting any of Plaintiff’s customers that were in the pipeline at the time they left
23
24
Plaintiff’s employment. See Dkts. #18-29 and 51-54. Neither party has submitted sufficient
25
evidence demonstrating that confidential documents or trade secrets were or were not removed
26
from Union Bank when Defendants left Plaintiff’s employment. Given the state of the evidence,
27
28
ORDER - 2
1
2
3
4
5
the Court cannot conclude at this stage of the proceedings that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the
merits of any of its claims.
More importantly, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate irreparable harm. Indeed, Plaintiff fails to
address irreparable harm at all in its written briefing. See Dkt. #35. When asked during oral
6
argument why monetary damages were not sufficient in this case, Plaintiff did not substantively
7
respond. Instead, Plaintiff pointed to a single exhibit, Exhibit 4 of Plaintiff’s exhibits submitted
8
during oral argument, which contained an email from Bianca Mack dated July 17, 2017. Plaintiff
9
10
did not explain how this exhibit demonstrated irreparable harm. Accordingly, the Court agrees
11
with Defendants that Plaintiff’s alleged damages on each one of its claims consist of lost
12
customers, lost sales, and lost employees, which losses can be calculated in terms of monetary
13
damages. See Dkt. #18 at 28. Where damages are readily calculable, a party cannot show
14
15
16
irreparable harm and injunctive relief is not appropriate. Goldie’s Bookstore, Inc. v. Superior
Court of Cal., 739 F.2d 466, 471 (9th Cir. 1984).
17
For these reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that a preliminary
18
injunction is warranted in this matter. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction
19
20
21
(Dkt. #5) is DENIED.
DATED this 11 day of December, 2017.
22
A
23
24
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
25
26
27
28
ORDER - 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?