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
ZERO MANUFACTURING, INC.,
EDAK, INC., GREGG T. BENOIT,
Case No: 6:13-cv-852-Orl-31DAB
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.
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
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.
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).
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
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on June 4, 2013.
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
- 4 -