Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: "Certified Brands Group, Inc. v. Owens", Date: 2022-11-07 Tentative Ruling
Before the Court is the Order to Show Cause re Preliminary Injunction, which was issued in response to the ex parte application presented on 10/26/22 by Plaintiff Certified Brands Group, Inc. (“CBG”), as to defendant Michael P. Owens (“Owens”).
The request for Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED IN PART.
In determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction, the trial court considers two interrelated factors: (1) the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits at trial and (2) the interim harm that the plaintiff is likely to sustain if the injunction is denied as compared to the harm that the defendant is likely to suffer if the court grants a preliminary injunction. The latter factor involves consideration of such things as the inadequacy of other remedies, the degree of irreparable harm, and the necessity of preserving the status quo. (Abrams v. St. John's Hospital & Health Center (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 628, 635–36.) The court’s determination is guided by a mix of the potential-merit and interim-harm factors; the greater the plaintiff’s showing on one, the less must be shown on the other. (Butt v. State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, 678.)
Here, Plaintiff has presented evidence to show that until October 2022, CBG was occupying office space in the subject premises pursuant to a sublease from Launch Media, Inc., with a lease term through September 14, 2023. (Gunton Decl. ¶ 12, at Ex. C.) Owens (who states that he is the principal shareholder and CEO of Launch Media Inc.), effectively evicted CBG from the Premises in early October 2022, evidently without any notice to CBG, and undisputedly without any court authority to do so. (Id. at ¶¶ 11-13; Owens Decl. at ¶¶ 26- 30.) Mr. Owens admits that he unilaterally had CBG’s personal property packed up and taken away to a storage unit, with the intent to later provide CBG with the key, had an IT professional change its credentials and remove its server and phone system, with the latter subsequently delivered to its Chairman at another location along with new credentials, and as of 10/3/22, the Owens posted a guard at the premises to preclude CBG from accessing its own sublet space. (Owens Decl., ¶¶ 31-39; Merrick Decl., ¶¶ 6-8.) In light of this evidence, Plaintiff has shown a strong probability of success on the merits, at least as to some portion of the claims it has presented.
Plaintiff has also shown substantial interim harm, as it has been deprived of subleased office space that its personnel were using to operate its business, and claims a resulting drop in sales. (Gunton Decl. ¶ 18.) Interim relief is thus warranted here.
However, of the six categories identified by Plaintiff in its 10/28/22 Proposed Order for the requested scope of relief, only a portion thereof appears warranted at present.
The request to enjoin Owens from interfering with CBG’s right to exclusive access and control of the Premises is GRANTED, to continue until the right to possession is finally adjudicated or the sublease expires, whichever comes first.
The requests to enjoin Owens and anyone acting at his direction from using CBG “confidential information” obtained through seizure of CBG’s premises, its “company property,” and its cellphones are GRANTED IN PART. Although “confidential information” is not adequately defined in the request, Owens asserts that he has no information or property belonging to CBG whatsoever. The Court will thus enjoin Owens from using any files or documents or data obtained from or belonging to CBG. That will of course exclude any database which Owens owns or controls and is used by CBG pursuant to a license to do so.
The request to enjoin Owens and anyone acting at his direction from representing himself/themselves as persons affiliated with or authorized to speak for or employed by CBG, including to CBG’s customers, investors or business affiliates, is GRANTED.
The remaining requests, as to use of trade secrets, unfair competition, and the like, are primarily subsumed in an order enjoining Owens from using any files or documents or data obtained from or belonging to CBG, and otherwise are too amorphous to be included in an injunction.
The Court will thus issue a Preliminary Injunction as so limited, to be effective upon posting of an undertaking in accordance with C.C.P. § 529 in the amount of $10,000.
The Evidentiary Objections filed by Owens are, as to the Luong Decl., GRANTED for Obj. Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 6 [foundation]; otherwise OVERRULED. The Objections as to the Decker Decl. and the Supp. Gunton Decl. are OVERRULED.
Counsel for Plaintiff is to give notice of this ruling, submit a proposed Order which comports with the foregoing, and serve Defendant Owens with the resulting Order.