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
- 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.
- Plaintiffs made a clear showing of likelihood of success on their Arizona tortious-interference-with-business-expectancies claim.
- Plaintiffs established a likelihood of irreparable harm absent temporary injunctive relief.
- The balance of equities favored plaintiffs, and the public-interest factor was at least neutral.
- The temporary restraining order was conditioned on plaintiffs posting $5,000 in security.
Questions Presented
- Whether plaintiffs satisfied the heightened standard for a mandatory temporary restraining order requiring defendants to restore and transfer control of plaintiffs' digital infrastructure.
- Whether plaintiffs demonstrated a clear likelihood of success on their tortious-interference-with-business-expectancies claim.
- Whether plaintiffs established likely irreparable harm, favorable equities, and a neutral or favorable public interest sufficient to justify temporary injunctive relief.
- 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.