Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Orban Labs Inc. v. Circuit Research Labs Inc.

United States District Court, D. Arizona

July 30, 2018

Orban Labs Incorporated, Plaintiff,
v.
Circuit Research Labs Incorporated, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          Honorable Diane J. Humetewa, United States District Judge.

         This 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).[1]Defendants Circuit Research Labs, Inc. (“CRLI”) and Orban USA, Inc. (“Orban USA”) (collectively, “Defendants”)[2] 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.[3] 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 others, from:

• 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.

         IT 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.

         IT 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.

         IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as follows:

         Jointly, the parties shall prepare and file a pre-hearing statement by Tuesday, August 28, 2018, setting forth the following information:[4]

         A. COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

         Include the mailing addresses, office phone numbers, and email addresses for:

Plaintiff(s):
Defendant(s):

         B. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

         Cite the statute(s) giving this Court jurisdiction.

         State 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.

         C. LIST OF WITNESSES

         Separately, 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 hearing.

         Additionally, 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.”

         D. LIST OF EXHIBITS (See Attachment #1)

         The 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):

         1. The following exhibits are admissible in evidence and may be marked in evidence by the Clerk:

a. Plaintiff's Exhibits:
b. Defendant's Exhibits:

         2. As to the following exhibits, the parties have reached the following stipulations:

         a. Plaintiff's Exhibits:

         b. Defendant's Exhibits:

         3. As 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:

         a. Plaintiff's Exhibits:

         (E.g., 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 of foundation)).

         b. Defendant's Exhibits:

         (E.g., 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.