The Trial Lawyers College v. Gerry Spences Trial Lawyers College at Thunderhead Ranch et al

Filing 160

ORDER Denying as Moot #122 Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendants' Motion for Preliminary Injunction of California Lawsuit by the Honorable Joel M. Carson III (Court Staff, scl)

Case 1:20-cv-00080-JMC Document 160 Filed 04/27/21 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING
THE TRIAL LAWYERS COLLEGE,
a nonprofit corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:20-cv-80-JMC

GERRY SPENCES TRIAL LAWYERS
COLLEGE AT THUNDERHEAD RANCH,
a nonprofit corporation, and
GERALD L. SPENCE,
JOHN ZELBST,
REX PARRIS,
JOSEPH H. LOW,
KENT SPENCE,
JOHN JOYCE, and
DANIEL AMBROSE, individuals,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING AS MOOT
PLAINTIFF AND THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION OF CALIFORNIA LAWSUIT
On December 18, 2020, Plaintiff The Trial Lawyers College and Third-Party Defendants
moved for a Preliminary Injunction [Doc. 122]. Plaintiff sued in federal district court alleging
Defendants violated the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, et seq., and 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). Plaintiff
alleges Defendants infringed its federally registered trademarks and engaged in unfair competition,
false designation of origin, passing off, and false advertising related to Plaintiff’s federally
registered trademarks. Plaintiff also alleges Defendants violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse
Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1836, and Wyo. Stat. Ann.
§ 40-24-101, et seq., by accessing and misusing Plaintiff’s confidential and proprietary computer
files. Defendants Gerald L. Spence and Rex Parris filed counterclaims against Plaintiff and thirdparty claims against Plaintiff’s board members. Defendants also sued in California state court,

Case 1:20-cv-00080-JMC Document 160 Filed 04/27/21 Page 2 of 2

asserting claims much like their Counterclaims in this Court. The defendants in the California suit
removed to federal court, but the United States District Court for the Central District of California
remanded the case to Los Angeles Superior Court.
Before the remand, Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendants moved for a preliminary
injunction of the California lawsuit. They asked that if the federal court remanded the California
action—this Court enjoin the prosecution in California state court under the “in aid of jurisdiction”
exception to the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283. But while this motion was pending, the
Los Angeles Superior Court stayed that proceeding in favor of this action.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendants’ Motion
for Preliminary Injunction of California Lawsuit [Doc. 122].
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Entered for the Court
this the 27th day of April, 2021
/s/ Joel M. Carson III______
Joel M. Carson III
United States Circuit Judge
Sitting by Designation

2