You're viewing Docket Item 8 from the case Zero Manufacturing, Inc. v. Edak, Inc. et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 6:13-cv-00852-GAP-DAB Document 8 Filed 06/04/13 Page 1 of 4 PageID 59



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

ORLANDO DIVISION



Plaintiff,

ZERO MANUFACTURING, INC.,



v.

EDAK, INC., GREGG T. BENOIT,






Defendants.

Case No: 6:13-cv-852-Orl-31DAB





ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on the Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining

Order (Doc. 2) filed by the Plaintiff, Zero Manufacturing, Inc. (“Zero Manufacturing”). Zero

Manufacturing seeks an order preventing Defendant Gregg Benoit (“Benoit”) and Defendant

EDAK, Inc. (“EDAK”) from meeting with the United States Air Force on June 6, 2013.

I.

Background

According to the allegations of the Verified Complaint (Doc. 1), Benoit worked for Zero

Manufacturing for approximately twenty years before leaving in March to go to work for EDAK, a

competitor. Zero Manufacturing contends that, at the June 6 meeting with the Air Force, Benoit

and EDAK intend to “misappropriate and use Plaintiff’s trade secrets and interfere with Plaintiff’s

business relationship with the Air Force.” (Doc. 2 at 1). In the instant suit, Zero Manufacturing

alleges misappropriation of trade secrets as to both Defendants (Count I), breach of contract as to

Benoit (Count II), tortious interference with a business relationship as to both Defendants (Count

III), and unjust enrichment as to both Defendants (Count IV). Zero Manufacturing also seeks

injunctive relief as to each Defendant (Count V, VI).

Case 6:13-cv-00852-GAP-DAB Document 8 Filed 06/04/13 Page 2 of 4 PageID 60






II.

Legal Standards

A federal court may enter a temporary restraining order without notice to the adverse party

or its attorney only if specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that

immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse

party can be heard in opposition and the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to

give notice and the reasons why it should not be required. Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b)(1). Every

temporary restraining order issued without notice must state the date and hour it was issued;

describe the injury and state why it is irreparable; state why the order was issued without notice;

and be promptly filed in the clerk's office and entered in the record. Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b)(2). The

order expires at the time after entry -- not to exceed 14 days -- that the court sets, unless before

that time the court, for good cause, extends it for a like period or the adverse party consents to a

longer extension. The reasons for an extension must be entered in the record. Fed.R.Civ.P.

65(b)(3).

The issuance of a temporary restraining order is an extraordinary remedy. See California

v. American Stores Company, et al., 492 U.S. 1301, 110 S.Ct. 1, 106 L.Ed.2d 616 (1989); Johnson

v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 734 F.2d 774 (11th Cir.1984). The party seeking a temporary

restraining order must demonstrate: 1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, 2) that

irreparable injury will be suffered if the injunction is not granted, 3) that the threatened injury

outweighs the harm the relief would inflict on the non-movant, and 4) that the entry of relief

would serve the public interest. Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223, 1226-27

(11th Cir. 2005). Injunctive relief may not be granted unless the plaintiff establishes the

substantial likelihood of success criterion. Id. at 1227.



- 2 -

Case 6:13-cv-00852-GAP-DAB Document 8 Filed 06/04/13 Page 3 of 4 PageID 61






In addition, it is a bedrock principle of equity that courts may impose the substantive

remedy of injunctive relief only when fundamental fairness and justice demand it. Coral Springs

Street Systems, Inc. v. City of Sunrise, 371 F.3d 1320, 1340 (11th Cir. 2004). Courts of equity

frequently decline to interfere on behalf of a complainant whose attitude is unconscientious in

respect of the matter concerning which it seeks relief. National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford v.

Thompson, 281 U.S. 331, 338, 50 S.Ct. 288, 291 74 L.Ed. 881 (1930). Simply stated, equity aids

the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights. See, e.g., Atlanta & St. A.B. Ry. Co. v. Barnes, 95

F.2d 273, 278 (5th Cir. 1938).

III. Analysis

The Plaintiff’s motion, like its complaint, is long on allegations but short on specifics.

From those documents, the Court is informed that Zero Manufacturing and Edak are competitors,

that Benoit worked for the former and now works for the latter, and that Benoit plans to meet with

representatives of the United States Air Force, with which the Plaintiff has a business relationship.

Aside from this, little of import is known. Zero Manufacturing recites a long list of alleged trade

secrets – “design and manufacturing methodologies, financial information, market information,

research and development information, pricing structures, customer lists, and other sensitive

information” (Doc. 1 at 3) – to which Benoit was presumably made privy. However, aside from

the simple fact that the meeting is occurring, the Plaintiff provides no evidence that Benoit intends

to misuse its alleged trade secrets or interfere with its business relationship. The Plaintiff does not

even provide an explanation as to how it knows these things to be true, or at least more likely than

not to be true. Given this utter lack of support for its allegations, the Court finds that Zero

Manufacturing has failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits.

Accordingly, it is hereby



- 3 -

Case 6:13-cv-00852-GAP-DAB Document 8 Filed 06/04/13 Page 4 of 4 PageID 62






ORDERED that the Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 2) is

DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on June 4, 2013.


Copies furnished to:

Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties






- 4 -