Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00711/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00711-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:0101 Copyright Infringement (definitions)

---

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

I I 

12 

13 

14 

15 

FILED 

APR 0 7 2017 

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BY ~DEPUTY 

v 

UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

HireAHelper1 LLc; a California 

Limited Liability L.ompany 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Move Lift LLC, a Texas Limited 

Liability Company; Simple Moving 

Labor, LLC, a Texas Limited Liability 

Company 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. l 7cv071 l-WQH-JMA 

ORDER 

16 HA YES, Judge: 

17 The matter before the Court is the Ex Parte Application for Temporary 

18 Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Why Preliminary Injunction Should Not 

19 Issue (ECF No. 2) filed by Plaintiff Hire A Helper LLC ("Plaintiff'). 

20 I. Allegations of the Complaint (ECF No. 1) 

21 On April 7, 2017, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing the Complaint (ECF No. 

22 I). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Move Lift, LLC and Simple Moving Labor, LLC 

23 ("Defendants") have published material on Defendants' website that infringes on 

24 Plaintiffs copyright. Id. at ~ 23-24. Plaintiff alleges that it has not "'authorized 

25 [Defendants} to reproduce or copy anything including without limitation [Plaintiffs] 

26 copyrighted text and layout in [Defendants'] website." Id. at if 25 . 

27 Plaintiff alleges that its "executives began pursuing Budget Truck Rentals, LLC 

28 ('Budget') for [Plaintiff] to enter into a contract in which Budget would refer its 

- I - 17cv07 11-WQH-JMA 

Case 3:17-cv-00711-WQH-JMA Document 5 Filed 04/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
customers to [Plaintiffs] online marketplace. The Potential Budget Contract is

projected to generate many millions of dollars of additional revenue and profits for

[Plaintiff].” Id. at ^ 16. Plaintiff alleges that “[o]n or about January 11, 2017, after

*

nearly seven years attempting to secure the Potential Budget Contract, on January 11,

2017, Budget’s representative... called [Plaintiffs] Head ofSales & Marketing, Ryan

Charles, requesting that he travel to Budget’s office in New Jersey to present

[Plaintiffs] bid for the Potential Budget Contract. [Plaintiffs] bid was presented for

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

the Potential BudgetContract in person toBudget in Parsippany, New Jersey on March

6, 2017.” Id. at | 17. “On information and belief, [Defendant] MoveLift met with

Budget between March 10,2017, and April 1,2017, to present MoveLift’s bid for the

■' f

Potential Budget Contract based in part on MoveLift’s website that included material

wrongfully copied from and infringing upon [Plaintiffs] copyright in [Plaintiffs]

website.” Id. at 18. Plaintiff alleges that “Budget is currently considering either

[Plaintiffs] bid or MoveLift’s bid for the Potential Budget Contract.” Id. at 119.

Plaintiff alleges that “[f]urther irreparable harm to [Plaintiff] is imminent as a

result of [Defendants’] conduct, and [Plaintiff] is without an adequate remedy at law.

[Plaintiff] is entitled to emergency, temporary, preliminary and permanent injunctive

relief restraining [Defendants], their officers, directors, agents, employees,

representatives and all persons acting in concert with them from engaging in further

such acts of copyright infringement.” Id. at ]f 26. Plaintiff includes two claims for

reliefin the Complaint: (1) copyright infringement; and (2) unfair competition. Id. at

20-34. Plaintiffs prayer for relief includes a request for a temporary restraining

order, preliminary and permanent injunction against Defendants, “actual damages plus

[Defendants’] profits gained as a consequence of [Defendants’] infringement of

[Plaintiffs] copyright in an amount to be prove at trial[,]” statutory damages, punitive

damages, prejudgment interest on all amounts owed, and for fees. Id. at 7.

II. Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show

Cause Why Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue (ECF No. 2)

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-2- 17cv0711-WQH-JMA

Case 3:17-cv-00711-WQH-JMA Document 5 Filed 04/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
Concurrent with the Complaint, Plaintiff filed the Ex Parte Application for

Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Why Preliminary Injunction

Should Not Issue (ECF No. 2). Plaintiff contends that

Defendants are

1

2

3

misusing material copied from [Plaintiff] within the last

six weeks to unfairly interfere and compete with [Plaintiff] for a contract

with Budget that [Plaintiff] has been pursuing for seven years. Budget’s

award ofthe contract is now under active consideration. An emergency

temporary restraining order is urgently needed to prevent the irreparable

harm that result ifBudget were to award the contract to Defendants based

Defendants’ copyright infringements of [Plaintiffs] material

developed over 11 years at a cost ofhundreds ofthousands of dollars.

4

5

6

7 on

8

(ECF No. 2 at 2). Plaintiffrequests that the Court enter “a temporary restraining order

and a preliminary injunction prohibiting Defendants from publishing in any way the

content contained in HireAHelper’s website at www.hireahelper.com and barring

[Defendants] from negotiating for or entering into any contracts with Budget.” (ECF

No. 2-1 at 3). Plaintiff contends that

The Potential Budget Contract wouldRepresent a substantial part of

[Plaintiff’s] revenue and would enable [Plaintiff] to obtain other new

accounts and business relationships. If [Defendants] are permitted to

market themselves with their current websites to enter into contracts it

would not have obtained otherwise by relying upon the major investment

made by [Plaintiff], [Plaintiff] will never know of the accounts and

business relationships that it has lost due to [Defendants’] copyright

infringement. Proof ofthe amount ofthe loss would be extraordinarily

difficult or impossible. Such loss cannot be compensated by money

damages and is irreparable in nature.

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 Id. at 5.

III. Analysis

A. Temporary Restraining Order

Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 65(b)(1) states that

The court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral

notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if:

(A) 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

(B) the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts

made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be

required.

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-3- 17cv0711-WQH-JMA

Case 3:17-cv-00711-WQH-JMA Document 5 Filed 04/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). The Supreme Court has stated that, “[t]he stringent

restrictionsimposed by... Rule 65 on the availability ofex parte temporary restraining

orders reflect the fact that our entire jurisprudence runs counter to the notion of court

action taken before reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard has been granted

both sides of a dispute.” Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. ofTeamsters, 415 U.S.

423,438-39 (1974). “Consistent with this overriding concern, courts have recognized

very few circumstancesjustifying the issuance ofan ex parte TRO.” Reno AirRacing

Ass ’n., Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006).

In this case, Plaintiffhas attached a declaration to its Ex Parte Application for

Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Why Preliminary Injunction

ShouldNotIssue stating thatPlaintiffs counsel sent an email to Defendants containing

a copy ofthe Application. (ECF No. 2-3). The: Court finds that Plaintiffhas satisfied

the notice requirement ofRule 65(b)(1)(B).

However, Plaintiff has not set forth “specific facts” that “clearly show that

immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to [Plaintiff] before

[Defendants] can be heard in opposition[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). Plaintiffhas

failed to set forth specificAfacts as to why it is necessary for this Court to issue the

requested injunctive relief“before reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard has

been granted [to] both sides of [this] dispute.” Granny Goose, 415 U.S. at 439. See

also Zakar v. CHL Mortg. Pass Through Trust, No. 11CV457 JLS (WVG), 2011 WL

915293, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 8,2011) (Sammartino, J.) (“Plaintiffs failed to set forth

specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly showing that immediate and

irreparable loss would result before the Defendants could be heard in opposition.”).

Because Plaintiff has failed to meet the requirement set forth in Rule 65(b)(1)(A),

Plaintiffs application for a Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED.

B. Preliminary Injunction

Plaintiffs application also includes a request for a preliminary injunction. See

ECF No. 2-1 at 3. Rule 65(a) states that “The court may issue a preliminary injunction

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

-4- 17cv0711-WQH-JMA

Case 3:17-cv-00711-WQH-JMA Document 5 Filed 04/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
•v

only on notice to the adverse party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(l-2). Accordingly, for

Plaintiffto have its request for a preliminary injunction set for a hearing before this

Court, Plaintiffmust serve Defendants with all documents filed in this action to date,

including the Complaint (ECF No. 1), the Temporary Restraining Order and Order to

Show Cause Why Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue (ECF No. 2), and this

Order. Plaintiff must file proof of service in the record of this case no later than

Monday, April 10, 2017.

If Plaintiff timely files proof of service in the record of this case, Plaintiffs

request for a Preliminary Injunction will be set for a hearing on Monday, April 24,

2017, at 4:00 PM in Courtroom 14B. Any opposition by Defendants must be filed in

the record ofthis case no later than Monday, April 17, 2017. Any reply by Plaintiff

must be filed in the record ofthis case no later than Wednesday,

DATE:

1

2

3

1

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Iril 19, 2017.

13

14 WILLIAM Q.HXYES

United States District Judge

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-5- 17cv0711-WQH-JMA

Case 3:17-cv-00711-WQH-JMA Document 5 Filed 04/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5