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