United States District Court, D. Nevada
EDWARD D. JONES & CO., L.P., Plaintiffs,
MICHAEL PETERSON, Defendants.
TEMPORARY RESTRINING ORDER
before the court is plaintiff Edward D. Jones & Co.,
L.P.'s (“Edward Jones”) motion for temporary
restraining order. (ECF No. 4).
before the court is Edward Jones' motion for preliminary
injunction. (ECF No. 6).
action arises from defendant Michael Peterson's purported
misappropriation and use of Edward Jones' trade secrets
and confidential information. (ECF No. 1). Edward Jones
alleges the following:
Jones is an investment and financial advisory firm that deals
almost exclusively with individual investors. Id.
Peterson was employed by Edward Jones as a financial advisor
in Henderson, Nevada from February 2006 until his resignation
on October 25, 2019. Id. Jones has since obtained
employment with Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc.
(“Ameriprise”), an investment firm that competes
with Edward Jones. Id.
executed an “Investment Representative Employment
Agreement” (“employment agreement”) when he
accepted employment with Edward Jones. Id. The
employment agreement provided that Peterson would have access
to confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information of
Edward Jones. (ECF No. 1-1). In the employment agreement,
Peterson agreed to protect said information, use it only in
the course of his employment, and return it to Edward Jones
upon termination of his employment. Id.
to his resignation, Peterson printed a “Total Value
Sequence Summary Report” (“customer list”)
on September 17, 2019, which details all Edward Jones
customers he provided services to, their account numbers, and
the assets contained in their accounts. (ECF No. 1, 1-3).
Edward Jones has been unable to locate the customer list in
Peterson's former Henderson, Nevada branch office. (ECF
No. 4). After beginning employment with Ameriprise, Peterson
“contacted, via telephone, at least eleven Edward Jones
customers” and “sent transfer paperwork to at
least fifteen Edward Jones customers.” (ECF No. 1-2,
1-4). Peterson continues to solicit Edward Jones' current
customers. (ECF No. 1).
November 8, 2019, Edward Jones filed a complaint alleging
four causes of action: (1) misappropriation of trade secrets
pursuant to the Defend Trade Secrets Act
(“DTSA”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1836, et
seq.; (2) misappropriation of trade secrets pursuant to
Nevada's codification of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act
(“UTSA”), NRS Chapter 600A; (3) breach of
contract; and (4) injunctive relief. Id. Edward
Jones is presently pursuing these claims in arbitration
pursuant to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
(“FINRA”) Code of Arbitration. (ECF No. 4).
Edward Jones requests that the court issue a temporary
restraining order enjoining Peterson from violating the
employment agreement until a FINRA arbitration panel can
determine whether a longer injunction should be entered.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, a court may issue a
temporary restraining order when the moving party provides
specific facts showing that immediate and irreparable injury,
loss, or damage will result before the adverse party's
opposition to a motion for preliminary injunction can be
heard. Fed.R.Civ.P. 65. “Injunctive relief is an
extraordinary remedy and it will not be granted absent a
showing of probable success on the merits and the possibility
of irreparable injury should it not be granted.”
Shelton v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Assoc., 539
F.2d 1197, 1199 (9th Cir. 1976).
purpose of a temporary restraining order is to preserve the
status quo before a preliminary injunction hearing may be
held; its provisional remedial nature is designed merely to
prevent irreparable loss of rights prior to judgment.”
Estes v. Gaston, No. 2:12-cv-1853-JCM-VCF, 2012 WL
5839490, at *2 (D. Nev. Nov. 16, 2012); see also Sierra
On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415,
1422 (9th Cir. 1984).
court must consider the following elements in determining
whether to issue a temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction: (1) a likelihood of success on the
merits; (2) likelihood of irreparable injury if preliminary
relief is not granted; (3) balance of hardships; and (4)
advancement of the public interest. Winter v.
N.R.D.C., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Stanley v. Univ. of
S. California, 13 F.3d 1313, 1319 (9th Cir. 1994);
Fed.R.Civ.P. 65 (governing both temporary restraining orders
and preliminary injunctions).
party seeking the injunction must satisfy each element;
however, “the elements of the preliminary injunction
test are balanced, so that a stronger showing of one element
may offset a weaker showing of another.” Alliance
for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131
(9th Cir. 2011). “Serious questions going to the merits
and a balance of hardships that tips sharply towards the
plaintiff can support issuance of a preliminary injunction,
so long as the plaintiff also shows that there is a
likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is
in the public interest.” Id. at 1135 (internal
quotations marks omitted).
to obtain injunctive relief, plaintiff must show it is
“under threat of suffering ‘injury in fact'
that is concrete and particularized; the threat must be
actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must
be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the
defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable judicial
decision will prevent or redress the injury.” Ctr.
for Food ...