Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-05712/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-05712-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MV TRANSPORTATION INC.,

et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. C 07-5712 PJH

v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

JANET DAVIS, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Plaintiffs’ motion for temporary restraining order came on for hearing before this

court on November 21, 2007. Plaintiffs MV Transportation, Inc. and MV Public

Transportation, Inc. (“plaintiffs”) appeared through their counsel, Charles Post. Defendant

Janet Davis (“defendant”) appeared through her counsel., Eric Dowell and Alec Hillbo. 

Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant

legal authority, the court hereby rules as follows, for the reasons stated at the hearing.

To prevail on a motion for temporary restraining order, the moving party bears the

burden of demonstrating either 1) a combination of probable success on the merits and the

possibility of irreparable injury or 2) the existence of serious questions as to success on the

merits and irreparable injury along with a sharp tipping of the balance of hardships in the

moving party’s favor. See, e.g., Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Bruch & Co., Inc.,

240 F.3d 832, 329-40 (9th Cir. 2001). Plaintiffs, however, have failed to make a sufficient

evidentiary or legal showing of either the likelihood of success on the merits of their claims

or irreparable injury. In particular, plaintiffs have failed to make a sufficient evidentiary

showing that defendant has solicited plaintiffs’ employees and/or used or disclosed

plaintiffs’ proprietary trade secret information, in violation of either the Share Purchase

Case 4:07-cv-05712-PJH Document 24 Filed 11/27/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Agreement or the employment agreement. Accordingly, the motion for temporary

restraining order is DENIED.

Plaintiffs’ corresponding request for an order to show cause why a preliminary

injunction should not issue is GRANTED, but only as to the limited issue whether defendant

should be prohibited from continued employment with one of plaintiffs’ competitors, in

violation of the non-compete provisions of the Share Purchase Agreement. The parties

may conduct discovery as to this issue in preparation for the preliminary injunction hearing. 

Discovery shall be completed within eight weeks of the date of this order, at the close of

which plaintiffs shall file their motion for preliminary injunction, in accordance with the 35

day briefing schedule contemplated by the local rules of this court. 

Finally, the court is also of the opinion that defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer

the instant action for improper venue requires further briefing. To that end, and

notwithstanding that discovery related to the preliminary injunction motion is underway,

plaintiffs shall file an opposition brief to defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer based on

improper venue no later than December 5, 2007. Defendant shall file a reply brief no later

than December 12, 2007. The motion will thereafter be decided on the papers.

In the event the court grants defendant’s motion based on improper venue, the

preliminary injunction schedule set forth above shall be vacated. If the court does not grant

defendant’s motion, plaintiffs shall proceed in accordance with the above. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 27, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-05712-PJH Document 24 Filed 11/27/07 Page 2 of 2