Skin Savvy Aesthetics LLC, et al. v. Panobit LLC, et al.

Skin Savvy · United States District Court for the District of Arizona · April 14, 2026 · No. CV-26-02332-PHX-KML

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted Skin Savvy Aesthetics LLC and Crystal Clean Window Team LLC’s motion for a temporary restraining order against Panobit LLC. The order requires Panobit, upon Skin Savvy’s posting of a $5,000 bond, to restore the plaintiffs’ digital infrastructure, transfer control and access credentials, refrain from interfering with related digital assets, and preserve evidence. The court found a clear likelihood of success on a tortious-interference claim and a likelihood of irreparable reputational and business harm, and stated that the order would expire fourteen days after issuance unless extended.

Holdings

  1. A request for a temporary restraining order that requires the defendant to take affirmative action is for a mandatory injunction, and the plaintiff must establish that the law and facts clearly favor its position, in addition to satisfying the Winter factors.
  2. Plaintiffs made a clear showing of likelihood of success on their Arizona tortious-interference-with-business-expectancies claim.
  3. Plaintiffs established a likelihood of irreparable harm absent temporary injunctive relief.
  4. The balance of equities favored plaintiffs, and the public-interest factor was at least neutral.
  5. The temporary restraining order was conditioned on plaintiffs posting $5,000 in security.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether plaintiffs satisfied the heightened standard for a mandatory temporary restraining order requiring defendants to restore and transfer control of plaintiffs' digital infrastructure.
  2. Whether plaintiffs demonstrated a clear likelihood of success on their tortious-interference-with-business-expectancies claim.
  3. Whether plaintiffs established likely irreparable harm, favorable equities, and a neutral or favorable public interest sufficient to justify temporary injunctive relief.
  4. Whether the temporary restraining order should be conditioned on security under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c).

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (19)

  • Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 24 (2008)(followed)
  • Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2011)(limited)
  • N. D. v. Reykdal, 102 F.4th 982, 992, 112 n.4 (9th Cir. 2024)(followed)
  • Doe v. Snyder, 28 F.4th 103, 111 (9th Cir. 2022)(followed)
  • Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 879 (9th Cir. 2009)(followed)
  • Johnson v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. CV 25-60-M-KLD, 2025 WL 1790345, at *7 (D. Mont. June 26, 2025)(persuasive)
  • Apartment Ass'n of Los Angeles County, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 10 F.4th 905, 911 (9th Cir. 2021)(followed)
  • League of Wilderness Defs./Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Connaughton, 752 F.3d 755, 765 n.3 (9th Cir. 2014)(followed)
  • Dube v. Likins, 167 P.3d 93, 99-100 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007)(followed)
  • Neonatology Associates, Ltd. v. Phoenix Perinatal Associates Inc., 164 P.3d 691, 693-94 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 19.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…