Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

JJ Plank Co. LLC v. Bowman

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Monroe Division

July 25, 2018

JJ PLANK COMPANY, LLC, AND XERIUM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
v.
GARY BOWMAN

          PEREZ-MONTES MAG. JUDGE.

          RULING

          TERRY A. DOUGHTY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Pending before the Court is Defendant Gary Bowman's (“Bowman”) Expedited Motion to Dissolve or, Alternatively, to Partially Dissolve the June 15, 2018 Temporary Restraining Order [Doc. No. 19]. For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

         I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         On June 15, 2018, based on the factual allegations contained in Plaintiffs JJ Plank Company, LLC, and Xerium Technologies, Inc.'s (collectively “Xerium”) verified Complaint for Temporary and Permanent Injunctive and Other Relief [Doc. No. 1] and Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 4], the Court found that Xerium satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b). Therefore, the Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) [Doc. No. 6], which was set to expire at midnight on June 29, 2018, absent other order of the Court.

         On June 25, 2018, the Court conducted a telephone conference with counsel for the parties. During that conference, the Court continued the preliminary injunction hearing to July 12, 2018, and, by agreement of counsel, extended the TRO, pending further motion practice.

         On July 3, 2018, the Court held another telephone conference with counsel and re-set the preliminary injunction hearing to July 26, 2018. [Doc. No. 17]. The TRO was again continued by agreement of counsel.

         On July 6, 2018, Bowman filed the instant Expedited Motion to Dissolve or, Alternatively to Partially Dissolve the June 15, 2018 Temporary Restraining Order [Doc. No. 19]. Bowman contends that the entire TRO should be dissolved because of Plaintiffs' failure to provide notice prior to issuance under Rule 65(b)(1) and Local Rule 65.1. Alternatively, Bowman contends that the Court should strike paragraphs A, C, and D of the TRO as a matter of law because his non-competition agreement is not enforceable, and the allegations that his current employment could result in disclosure of Xerium's trade secrets are not sufficient to support these paragraphs of the TRO. He further moves for expedited consideration under Rule 65(b)(4). Bowman does not believe a hearing is necessary, but asks for prompt resolution of the motion.

         The same day, the Court issued a Minute Entry [Doc. No. 21] setting a briefing schedule on the motion. The Court ordered Xerium to file an opposition memorandum by July 18, 2018, and Bowman to file a reply memorandum by July 24, 2018.

         On July 11, 2018, Bowman filed a motion to further expedite consideration of its Motion to Dissolve or Partially Dissolve the TRO. [Doc. No. 24]. On July 12, 2018, Xerium filed an opposition memorandum [Doc. No. 25] to the motion. The same day, Bowman filed a reply memorandum [Doc. No. 26]. The Court denied the motion to further expedite, finding that the “briefing schedule previously set complies with Rule 65(b)(4) and will allow . . . the Court to decide the pending motion as promptly as justice requires.” [Doc. No. 28]. The Court noted its “intent . . . to decide the Motion to Dissolve prior to the hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction.” Id.

         On July 19, 2018, Xerium filed a memorandum in opposition to the instant motion. [Doc. No. 45].

         On July 24, 2018, Bowman filed a reply memorandum in support of the instant motion. [Doc. No. 48].

         The Court is now prepared to rule.

         II.LAW ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.