United States District Court, D. Arizona
Honorable Diane J. Humetewa, United States District Judge.
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Orban Labs
Incorporated's (“Plaintiff”) Application for
Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”), filed on
July 20, 2018. (Doc. 8).Defendants Circuit Research Labs, Inc.
(“CRLI”) and Orban USA, Inc. (“Orban
“Defendants”) filed a Response to the TRO (Doc. 19),
and the Court heard arguments on the Application on July 26,
2018. During that hearing, Plaintiff narrowed its request for
injunctive relief to injury stemming from Defendants'
alleged breach of a non-competition agreement. Defendants, in
turn, represented to the Court that they were amenable to
refraining from contacting or doing business with
Plaintiff's customers or dealers in the Western
Hemisphere. On that basis, the Court partially granted
Plaintiff's TRO on the record but requested that the
parties submit a joint proposed form of order by Monday, July
30, 2018. (See generally Minute Entry at Doc. 22).
The parties timely submitted that joint language to the
Court. (Doc. 23-1). Upon further reflection and having read,
heard, and considered the parties' arguments, the Court
now reconsiders its decision to partially grant Plaintiffs
TRO. See Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555
U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (“A preliminary injunction is an
extraordinary remedy never awarded as a matter of
right”). Instead, the Court will deny Plaintiffs TRO
but will approve the terms stipulated to by the parties and
set an Order to Show Cause Hearing as to why a preliminary
injunction should not issue in favor of Plaintiff on its
claims for breach of the non-compete agreement. Plaintiff will
therefore not be required to post a bond. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Plaintiffs
Application for Temporary Restraining Order with Notice (Doc.
8). The Court instead approves the stipulated terms proposed
by the parties in Doc. 23-1. In accordance with those terms,
and for good cause showing, IT IS ORDERED
that Defendant CRLI is immediately enjoined and restrained,
directly and indirectly, whether alone or in concert with
• interfering with the contracts and/or business
relationships between Plaintiff and its customers or dealers
in the Western Hemisphere;
• taking any action to divert Plaintiffs business away
from Plaintiff in the Western Hemisphere; or
• competing with Plaintiff in the Western Hemisphere,
soliciting Plaintiffs customers and dealers in the Western
Hemisphere, doing business with Plaintiffs customers and
dealers in the Western Hemisphere, or inducing or attempting
to induce Plaintiffs employees or contractors to stop
providing services to Plaintiff in the Western Hemisphere.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the terms of this order will
remain in force and effect until such time as this Court
renders a final decision on Plaintiff's request for a
preliminary and mandatory injunction.
IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a Show Cause Hearing
on Plaintiff's request for a preliminary and mandatory
injunction on Tuesday, September 04, 2018 at 1:00 p.m.
in Courtroom 605 of the Sandra Day O'Connor U.S.
Courthouse, 401 W. Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85003.
IS FURTHER ORDERED as follows:
the parties shall prepare and file a pre-hearing statement by
Tuesday, August 28, 2018, setting forth the
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES
the mailing addresses, office phone numbers, and email
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
the statute(s) giving this Court jurisdiction.
whether jurisdiction is or is not disputed. If jurisdiction
is disputed, the party contesting jurisdiction shall set
forth with specificity the bases for the objection.
LIST OF WITNESSES
each party shall list the names of witnesses and their
respective addresses, whether they're a fact or expert
witness, and a brief statement as to the testimony of each
witness. The witnesses shall be grouped as follows: (1)
witnesses who shall be called at the hearing; (2)
witnesses who may be called at the hearing; and (3)
witnesses who are unlikely to be called at the
the parties shall include the following text in this section
of the joint pre-hearing statement: “Each party
understands that it is responsible for ensuring that the
witnesses it wishes to call to testify are subpoenaed. Each
party further understands that any witness a party wishes to
call shall be listed on that party's list of witnesses
above and that party cannot rely on that witness having been
listed or subpoenaed by another party.”
LIST OF EXHIBITS (See Attachment #1)
parties shall number exhibits as provided in Attachment #1
(“Exhibits - Marking, Listing and Custody”), and
such numbers shall correspond to the numbers of exhibits
listed in the joint pre-hearing statement):
following exhibits are admissible in evidence and may be
marked in evidence by the Clerk:
a. Plaintiff's Exhibits:
b. Defendant's Exhibits:
to the following exhibits, the parties have reached the
to the following exhibits, the party against whom the exhibit
is to be offered objects to the admission of the exhibit and
offers the objection stated below:
City Hospital records of Plaintiff from March 6, 1985 through
March 22, 1985. Defendant objects for lack of foundation
because . . . (the objection must specify why there is a lack
Payroll records of Plaintiff's employer which evidences
payment of Plaintiff's salary during hospitalization and
recovery. Plaintiff objects on grounds of relevance and
materiality because (the objection ...