Base One Technologies, Inc. v. Dula, No. 8:2018cv02646 - Document 4 (D. Md. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Paula Xinis on 8/29/2018. (heps, Deputy Clerk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Base One Technologies, Inc. v. Dula Doc. 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND BASE ONE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. * Plaintiff * v. * THAI DULA * Defendant Civil Action No. 8:18-cv-2646-PX * *** MEMORANDUM OPINION Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Base One Technologies, Inc.’s motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. ECF No. 2. For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. On August 27, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that Defendant Thai Dula, a former employee, is working for a competing organization in violation of a non-compete agreement. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 25–32. Prior to the issuance of any summons, Plaintiff moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. ECF No. 2. Plaintiff does not certify that it has attempted to provide notice to Defendant. Instead, Plaintiff argues that notice is not necessary where injury is immediate and irreparable. ECF No. 2-1 at 9. The district court retains broad discretion over entering temporary restraining orders “so long as the opposing party is given a reasonable opportunity, commensurate with the scarcity of time under the circumstances, to prepare a defense and advance reasons why the injunction should not issue.” U.S. Dep’t of Labor v. Wolf Run Mining Co., 452 F.3d 275, 283 (4th Cir. 2006) (quoting Ciena Corp. v. Jarrard, 203 F.3d 312, 319 (4th Cir. 2000)). For a temporary restraining order to issue without notice, not only must there be irreparable injury, counsel for the movant must “certif[y] in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it Dockets.Justia.com should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). “The requirements of Rule 65(b)(1) are not merely technical niceties that a court may easily disregard, but rather crucial safeguards of due process.” Parker v. Am. Brokers Conduit, No. JKB-15-3652, 2015 WL 7751664, at *2 (D. Md. Dec. 1 2015) (quoting Tchienkou v. Net Trust Mortg., No. 3:10-CV-00023, 2010 WL 2375882, at *1 (W.D. Va. June 9, 2010)). Plaintiff’s motion does not certify whether efforts were made to place Defendant on notice or reasons why notice should not be required. Accordingly, at this juncture, Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order must be denied. 1 A separate order will follow. _8/29/18______________________ Date _________/S/__________________ Paula Xinis United States District Judge 1 If Plaintiff wishes to have the ex parte motion considered on the merits, it may refile this motion in compliance with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1). If Plaintiff no longer wishes to have this motion considered ex parte, it may file a new motion that has been properly served upon Defendant and that otherwise complies with the requirements of Rule 65(b)(1). 2
]]>
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.
