Opinion ID: 780571
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: EPL's Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Text: 23 EPL also moved for preliminary injunction after it terminated the Franchise Agreements, and after Hashim continued operating the Restaurants using EPL's name, trademarks and trade secrets. Hashim opposed the requested injunction on the basis that EPL's suit was barred under the statute of limitations. EPL countered that the discovery rule foreclosed Hashim's statute of limitations argument. In response, Hashim moved to strike the discovery argument submitted in EPL's Reply Brief, or in the alternative, to permit the filing of supplemental briefs. 24 The district court did not address Hashim's motion to strike or to allow supplemental briefing. However, during the preliminary injunction hearing, the district court provided Hashim's attorney an opportunity to respond to EPL's discovery rule argument. After hearing from Hashim's attorney, the district court stated it would take the matter under submission to study this case and the point that counsel has raised. 25 The district court granted EPL's motion for preliminary injunction, and Hashim timely filed his notice of appeal.