Allied Services, LLC v. Smash My Trash, LLC
4:21-cv-00249
| W.D. Mo. | Apr 28, 2021Background
- Allied Services, LLC (d/b/a Republic Services of Kansas City) owns and places open-top roll-off dumpsters at customer sites and provides scheduled waste-hauling services; Smash My Trash offers mobile waste compaction by lowering a rotating spiked drum into such dumpsters.
- Allied alleges Smash solicited Allied’s customers, compacted waste in Allied-owned dumpsters without permission, caused physical damage to containers, and harmed Allied’s customer relationships and goodwill.
- Allied sued asserting conversion, intermeddling with chattel, tortious interference, and Lanham Act false-advertising claims, and moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to enjoin solicitation, compaction in Allied’s dumpsters, and advertising.
- At a hearing, Allied presented testimony and exhibits; Smash disputed technical/causation allegations and defended its business practices.
- The Court denied the TRO/PI because Allied failed to show irreparable harm (the dispositive Dataphase factor) and therefore did not reach the remaining injunction factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Allied showed irreparable harm (loss of goodwill/reputation) warranting injunctive relief | Smash’s solicitation and website statements are creating distrust, causing contract cancellations/amendments, and harming goodwill in ways not fully compensable by money | Alleged reputational/customer losses are speculative, limited, and compensable by damages; injuries are self-inflicted or not caused by Smash | Denied — Allied failed to prove imminent, unrecoverable irreparable harm; loss of customers/profits is compensable by money damages |
| Whether alleged physical damage to dumpsters is irreparable | Smash’s compaction damages Allied’s $5,000 dumpsters | Any physical damage is quantifiable and compensable | Denied — physical damage can be remedied by damages; not irreparable |
| Whether Allied likely to succeed on underlying claims (conversion, interference, Lanham Act) | Smash’s conduct constitutes conversion/interference/false advertising | Smash disputes misuse, causation, and denies hydraulic compaction; challenges legal viability | Not decided — Court declined to reach merits after finding no irreparable harm |
| Whether balance of harms/public interest favor an injunction | Injunction needed to prevent ongoing customer disruption and property harm | Injunction would unduly restrain Smash’s business absent proof of irreparable harm | Not decided — Court did not reach these Dataphase factors after resolving irreparable harm against Allied |
Key Cases Cited
- Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1981) (sets the four-factor preliminary injunction test)
- Gelco Corp. v. Coniston Partners, 811 F.2d 414 (8th Cir. 1987) (failure to show irreparable harm is sufficient to deny an injunction)
- Mgmt. Registry, Inc. v. A.W. Co.’s, Inc., 920 F.3d 1181 (8th Cir. 2019) (affirming denial where movant lacked evidence of irreparable harm)
- Gen. Motors Corp. v. Harry Brown’s, L.L.C., 563 F.3d 312 (8th Cir. 2009) (economic losses and lost customer relationships are often compensable by damages)
- Novus Franchising, Inc. v. Dawson, 725 F.3d 885 (8th Cir. 2013) (injury must be certain and imminent to support injunction)
- Watkins Inc. v. Lewis, 346 F.3d 841 (8th Cir. 2003) (injunctive relief is extraordinary and movant bears the burden)
- Henderson v. Bodine Aluminum, Inc., 70 F.3d 958 (8th Cir. 1995) (findings in granting a preliminary injunction are not binding at trial)
- Packard Elevator v. I.C.C., 782 F.2d 112 (8th Cir. 1986) (injury must be attributable to the conduct sought to be enjoined)