United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
March 20, 2017, Plaintiff Fleetwash, Inc. filed a Motion for
a Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 4)
and Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (ECF No.
5). Defendants Matthew Hall
(“Hall”) and Mobile Truck Wash, LLC
(“MTW”) filed an Opposition on April 3, 2017 (ECF
No. 13), and Plaintiff filed a Reply on April 10, 2017 (ECF
No. 14). The Court conducted a hearing on May 3, 2017 and May
4, 2017 in which witness testimony and exhibits were admitted
into evidence. The Court granted Plaintiff's motions and
directed Plaintiff to submit a proposed order.
relief is a matter of discretion and an extraordinary remedy
to be issued if a plaintiff establishes: (1) likelihood of
success on the merits; (2) likelihood of irreparable harm in
the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of
hardships tips in his favor; and (4) that an injunction is in
the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council,
Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008). The Ninth Circuit utilizes a
sliding scale approach in that “‘serious
questions going to the merits' and a hardship balance
that tips sharply toward the plaintiff can support issuance
of an injunction, assuming the other two elements of the
Winter test are also met.” Alliance for
the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134-1135
(9th Cir. 2011). A plaintiff is not required to demonstrate a
certainty of success, but rather only a “fair chance of
success, ” in order to obtain preliminary injunctive
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Court, having duly considered Plaintiff's Complaint,
emergency motions, and the evidence presented by the parties,
hereby makes the following findings and conclusions.
Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of its
intentional interference with contractual relations and
intentional interference with prospective economic advantage
an action for intentional interference with contractual
relations, a plaintiff must establish: (1) a valid and
existing contract; (2) the defendant's knowledge of the
contract; (3) intentional acts intended or designed to
disrupt the contractual relationship; (4) actual disruption
of the contract; and (5) resulting damage. J.J. Indus.,
LLC v. Bennett, 71 P.3d 1264, 1267 (Nev. 2003). This
claim requires proof of intentional acts by a defendant
intended or designed to disrupt a plaintiff's contractual
relations. Id. at 1268.
order to establish a claim for interference with prospective
economic advantage in Nevada, a plaintiff must establish the
following elements: (1) a prospective contractual
relationship between the plaintiff and a third party; (2) the
defendant's knowledge of this prospective relationship;
(3) the intent to harm the plaintiff by preventing this
relationship; (4) the absence of privilege or justification
by the defendant; and (5) actual harm to the plaintiff as a
result. Custom Teleconnect, Inc. v. Int'l
Tele-Servs., Inc., 254 F.Supp.2d 1173, 1180-81 (D. Nev.
Here, there is no dispute that Plaintiff has contracts with
some of its customers. Defendants knew of the contracts by
virtue of Hall's former position as Operations Manager
and Hall had access to customer contact information, the
representative's name, and pricing information.
Defendants set up their business in October 2016 using
Plaintiff's resources to jump start the business,
including Plaintiff's American Express credit card.
Hall's explanation that it was an accident that he used
Plaintiff's American Express credit card is not credible
because he made three charges on three different dates,
December 31, 2016, January 5, 2017 and January 6, 2017.
also used Plaintiff's employees while the employees were
being paid by Plaintiff to do work for Fleetwash's
clients on behalf of MTW. Mr. Delgado's testimony was
credible on this issue because he does not any personal
interest in this dispute and it takes a lot for an employee
to report his supervisor. The Court also make this assessment
based on Mr. Delgado's demeanor at the hearing.
Further, Hall admitted to servicing Plaintiff's customer,
American Ready Mix, and his explanation of the other
customers who were serviced was not credible in light of Mr.
Delgado's testimony that Hall knew that Bladmir Navarro
had performed work for those customers, that Hall directed