Juries.AI, Inc. v. Vincent Sheu

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part Juries.AI, Inc.’s ex parte application for a temporary restraining order against former co-founder and employee Vincent Sheu. The order restrains Sheu from using or disclosing Juries.AI’s trade secrets and confidential information, destroying evidence, or violating his confidentiality agreement, and requires him to return company property and information. The court declined to decide the request for expedited discovery before a December 4, 2025, hearing and ordered Sheu to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue.

Holdings

1. A temporary restraining order may issue without notice where specific facts in an affidavit or verified complaint establish immediate and irreparable injury before the opposing party can be heard and counsel certifies the notice efforts and reasons notice should not be required. Juries.AI satisfied those requirements.
2. Juries.AI made a strong showing of likelihood of success on its DTSA claim because the evidence supported the existence of trade secrets, improper acquisition or use, and resulting or threatened harm.
3. Juries.AI established likely irreparable harm, a favorable balance of equities, and a public interest supporting narrowly tailored injunctive relief.
4. Juries.AI satisfied the heightened standard for a mandatory injunction requiring Sheu to return company property and information, restore account access, and take related actions.
5. The court exercised its discretion to issue the TRO without requiring Juries.AI to post a bond.
6. The court did not authorize expedited discovery at that stage and deferred consideration of the request to the December 4, 2025, hearing.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Juries.AI satisfied the requirements for an ex parte temporary restraining order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1).
2. Whether Juries.AI demonstrated a likelihood of success on its Defend Trade Secrets Act claim.
3. Whether Juries.AI demonstrated likely irreparable harm, favorable equities, and a public interest supporting temporary injunctive relief.
4. Whether Juries.AI was entitled to mandatory relief requiring Sheu to return company property and information and restore account access.
5. Whether the court should require security under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c).
6. Whether expedited discovery should be authorized before the December 4, 2025, hearing.

Disposition

other