Audiology Distribution, LLC v. Jill Hawkins, No. 13-2526 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2526 AUDIOLOGY DISTRIBUTION, LLC, d/b/a HEARUSA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JILL LLC, K. HAWKINS, individually and d/b/a Hawkins Hearing, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:13-cv-00154-FPS) Submitted: June 26, 2014 Decided: July 16, 2014 Before KEENAN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Theodore A. Schroeder, LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellant. Raymond A. Hinerman, Michael A. Adams, HINERMAN & ASSOCIATES, Weirton, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Audiology Distribution, LLC, which does business as HearUSA ( HearUSA ), appeals the district court s denial without prejudice of its Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a) motion for a preliminary injunction. HearUSA contends that Appellee Jill Hawkins, who operates a competing provider Hearing, violates a non-compete agreement Hawkins executed when she was employed by HearUSA. of audiology services, Hawkins We have jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 1292(a)(1) and we affirm. We review the district court s resolution of a motion for a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. WV Ass n of Club Owners & Fraternal Servs., Inc. v. Musgrave, 553 F.3d 292, 298 (4th Cir. 2009). A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, to be granted only if the moving party clearly establishes entitlement to the relief sought. Manning v. Hunt, 119 F.3d 254, 263 (4th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). preliminary injunction must establish A plaintiff seeking a that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 2 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). matter of course. HearUSA An injunction is not granted as a Salazar v. Buono, 559 U.S. 700, 714 (2010). contends that the district court erred in finding that it had not established a likelihood of irreparable harm. Specifically, HearUSA argues that the evidence indicated that it had already lost customers and goodwill as a result of Hawkins actions, thus establishing the likelihood of damages that are not easily quantifiable. See Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Bradley, 756 F.2d 1048, 1055 (4th Cir. 1985). However, despite some evidence that HearUSA might have lost several district customers court erred to in Hawkins, we determining irreparable harm was insufficient. cannot that the conclude evidence the of See PBM Prods., LLC v. Mead Johnson & Co., 639 F.3d 111, 125 (4th Cir. 2011) (defining clear error). As the district court noted, HearUSA produced scant evidence regarding affected should how Hawkins its operations continue to had operate been or might Hawkins be Hearing. Nor did HearUSA offer any indication that the nature of its business was such that the loss of customers would result in damages that through money could not damages. be accurately See measured Multi-Channel TV and redressed Cable Co. v. Charlottesville Quality Cable Operating Co., 22 F.3d 546, 552 (4th Cir. 1994), abrogated on other grounds by Winter, 555 U.S. 3 7. Accordingly, although the evidence presented to the district court might well have persuaded some judges to grant a preliminary injunction, we conclude that the court acted within its discretion to require more. See Gen. Motors Corp. v. Harry Brown s, LLC, 563 F.3d 312, 319-20 (8th Cir. 2009) (explaining that [p]art of the district court s discretion is assessing whether an alleged [irreparable] harm requires more substantial proof ). Accordingly, we affirm the district court s order. dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.