H&R Block Tax Services, LLC v. Lutgardo Acevedo-Lopez, 742 F.3d 1074

H&R Block Tax Services LLC (Block) paid $1,000,000 in 2007 to acquire client lists and converted Lutgardo Acevedo-Lopez’s Puerto Rico tax offices into Block-branded franchises under a Franchise License Agreement (FLA) and a Conversion Agreement.
In January 2012 Block loaned Acevedo-Lopez $800,000 for additional client lists and assets; later Block sent a Notice of Breach (Aug 21, 2012) claiming $531,405.46 due and a Notice of Termination (Sept 11, 2012) terminating the FLA and demanding return of client lists and compliance with post-termination covenants (including a 2-year, 25-mile noncompete).
Block filed suit in November 2012 in W.D. Mo. asserting breach of contract claims and moved for a preliminary injunction to (1) compel return of client lists/data and (2) enjoin Acevedo-Lopez from operating within 25 miles of former franchise locations.
Acevedo-Lopez opposed, denying breach, asserting a $350,000 set-off/claim against Block, and arguing Block would not suffer irreparable harm because he remained available to act as a franchisee until resolution.
The district court denied the preliminary injunction in a one-page order citing the Dataphase factors and concluding Block had not shown irreparable harm, without detailed findings or an evidentiary hearing.
The Eighth Circuit vacated and remanded, holding the district court’s terse order failed to satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(2) because it lacked particularized findings necessary for meaningful appellate review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court complied with Rule 52(a)(2) in denying preliminary injunction	Block: denial rested on insufficient analysis; district court must state findings supporting denial	Acevedo-Lopez: denial appropriate because Block failed to show irreparable harm	Court: district court’s single-line finding was insufficient under Rule 52(a)(2); remand required for particularized findings
Whether Block demonstrated irreparable harm to justify preliminary injunctive relief	Block: continued use of client lists and operation at same locations causes classic irreparable harm warranting injunction	Acevedo-Lopez: no irreparable harm because he remained a franchisee and raised set-off/defenses; Block’s showing was minimal	Court: record showed only a minimal showing by Block and lack of evidentiary development; district court should have explained why that was inadequate before denying without evidentiary hearing
Whether appellate court should grant injunction outright	Block: record sufficiently favors injunction; ask court to direct entry	Acevedo-Lopez: factual disputes and other Dataphase factors unresolved; injunction inappropriate on sparse record	Court: declined to grant injunction; concluded all Dataphase factors were unresolved and trial court discretion is required; remanded for further proceedings

Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. CL Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1981) (sets four-factor test for preliminary injunctions)
Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365 (U.S. 2008) (preliminary injunctive relief requires a clear showing of likely irreparable harm)
Finney v. Ark. Bd. of Corr., 505 F.2d 194 (8th Cir. 1974) (appellate court may not make its own factual findings; need for trial court findings)
Osthus v. Whitesell Corp., 639 F.3d 841 (8th Cir. 2011) (Rule 52(a) requires brief, definite, pertinent findings on contested matters)
Emerson Elec. Co. v. Rogers, 418 F.3d 841 (8th Cir. 2005) (examples where franchisor showed irreparable harm and obtained preliminary relief)