Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05227/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05227-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 On May 14, 2007, the Court granted Kilzer’s motion for an order shortening time.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HUB INTERNATIONAL OF CALIFORNIA

INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MICHAEL KILZER, 

Defendant.

 /

No. C-06-5227 MMC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT

MICHAEL KILZER’S MOTION TO

DISSOLVE OR, ALTERNATIVELY,

CLARIFY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION;

VACATING HEARING

(Docket No. 40)

Before the Court is defendant Michael Kilzer’s (“Kilzer”) “Motion to Dissolve or, in the

Alternative, to Clarify, Preliminary Injunction,” filed May 10, 2007. Plaintiff Hub International

of California Insurance Services, Inc. (“Hub”) has filed opposition to the motion; Kilzer has

filed a reply. Having considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the

motion, the Court finds the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument, see Civil

L.R. 7-1(b), hereby VACATES the May 25, 2007 hearing, and rules as follows.1

For the reasons set forth by Hub in its opposition, Kilzer has not demonstrated that

the preliminary injunction the Court entered against Kilzer on September 12, 2006 should

be vacated. Accordingly, to the extent Kilzer seeks an order dissolving the injunction, the

motion is hereby DENIED.

Case 3:06-cv-05227-MMC Document 51 Filed 05/24/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Kilzer has demonstrated, however, that the preliminary injunction is not in

compliance with Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, because it incorporates

by reference the definition of “Contractor Prospects” and “Food Prospects” set forth in the

complaint. Rule 65(d) expressly requires an injunction to “describe in reasonable detail,

and not by reference to the complaint or other document, the act or acts sought to be

restrained.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d). 

Accordingly, to the extent Kilzer seeks clarification of the preliminary injunction, the

motion is hereby GRANTED, and Hub is hereby ORDERED to file, no later than June 8,

2007, a proposed amended preliminary injunction containing either (1) any definition of

“Contractor Prospects” and “Food Prospects” upon which Hub and Kilzer can agree, or (2)

the following definitions of such terms, which definitions are based upon the allegations of

the complaint, (see Compl. ¶¶ 12-13):

The term “Contractor Prospects” is hereby defined as (1) any Bay Area

roofer, developed by Kilzer as a prospect during his employment with Hub,

that had, as of July 31, 2006, 40 or more employees and annualized

compensation rates in the range of $300,000 on the low end to $2,500,000 on

the high end, and (2) any building contractor other than a roofer developed by

Kilzer as a prospect during his employment with Hub.

The term “Food Prospects” is hereby defined as any food processing entity

developed by Kilzer as a prospect, during his employment with Hub, as a

result of Kilzer’s cross-marketing/referral relationship with an accounting

professional.

Kilzer has not demonstrated that the preliminary injunction must be clarified in any

other respect. Accordingly, other than including the above-referenced definitions, Hub shall

not make any changes to the preliminary injunction issued on September 12, 2006.

This order terminates Docket No. 40.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 24, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05227-MMC Document 51 Filed 05/24/07 Page 2 of 2