Imagine Medispa, LLC v. Transformations, Inc.
2:13-cv-26923
| S.D.W. Va | Feb 26, 2014Background
- Imagine Medispa, LLC and owner David Rubio sued Transformations, Inc., Dr. Liza Frederick, and Joshua Galbraith alleging false advertising/false endorsement (Lanham Act), tortious interference, defamation, and invasion of privacy based on allegedly fake Facebook profiles/pages and a Craigslist ad listing Rubio as a seller.
- Plaintiffs claimed defendants distributed other allegedly false price advertisements in 2010–2011 and used social media to divert customers and contact employees; complaint filed Oct. 26, 2013.
- Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction (Jan. 8, 2014) seeking to enjoin defendants from internet-based advertising that misrepresents or impersonates Imagine or Rubio; the motion added factual allegations and referenced new statutory theories not pled in the complaint.
- At the preliminary-injunction stage parties submitted affidavits and screenshots: Rubio and several witnesses described fictitious Facebook pages and a Craigslist Camaro ad; defendants denied creating or sending the postings.
- The court found evidence that fictitious Facebook pages and the Craigslist ad existed and caused phone calls/confusion, but there was no direct evidence tying defendants to creation of the pages/ads and no proof Imagine lost clients or revenue; some pages were inactive for months.
- The court denied the preliminary injunction because plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits (key factual dispute about who created the false pages/ads) and failed to show likely irreparable harm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction to stop defendants' internet-based impersonation/advertising | Rubio argued false Facebook/Craigslist postings and related conduct are directing customers to Transformations and harming Imagine’s goodwill and reputation | Defendants denied responsibility for the postings and argued plaintiffs failed to meet Winter factors | Denied — plaintiffs failed to show likelihood of success and irreparable harm |
| Whether plaintiffs proved defendants created the fictitious Facebook pages and Craigslist ad | Plaintiffs relied on circumstantial evidence and affidavits showing the pages/ads existed and led observers to suspect Transformations | Defendants submitted affidavits denying any involvement and pointed to lack of direct proof | Court found a genuine factual dispute about authorship; affidavits were insufficient to resolve credibility without an evidentiary hearing |
| Whether plaintiffs showed irreparable harm from the alleged deception | Plaintiffs contended market confusion and diversion of clients constitute irreparable injury | Defendants noted pages were inactive and plaintiffs presented no evidence of lost clients or lost revenue; economic harm is typically compensable | Court held plaintiffs failed to show likely irreparable harm; episodic/inactive conduct and lack of lost business undermined request |
| Whether new, unpled statutory/criminal theories could support the injunction | Plaintiffs argued conduct may violate West Virginia criminal/medical-license statutes and settlement terms | Defendants opposed and moved to dismiss; court noted scope issues | Court refused to consider belated statutory claims as a basis for preliminary injunctive relief because they were not alleged in the complaint |
Key Cases Cited
- Omega World Travel, Inc. v. Trans World Airlines, 111 F.3d 14 (4th Cir. 1997) (preliminary relief protects movant from harm alleged in complaint)
- The Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. FEC, 575 F.3d 342 (4th Cir. 2009) (standard for preliminary injunction requires clear showing on four Winter factors)
- The Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. FEC, 607 F.3d 355 (4th Cir. 2010) (per curiam reissued portions regarding injunction standards)
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (plaintiff must show likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest)
- Univ. of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390 (1981) (preliminary injunctions rest on less formal evidence than a trial)
- Cobell v. Norton, 391 F.3d 251 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (when credibility is central, evidentiary hearing is required for preliminary injunction)
- Blackwelder Furniture Co. v. Seilig Mfg. Co., Inc., 550 F.2d 189 (4th Cir. 1977) (Rule 52(a) requires tentative factual findings supporting injunction rulings)
- Marshall Durbin Farms, Inc. v. Nat’l Farmers Org., Inc., 446 F.2d 353 (5th Cir. 1971) (courts reluctant to issue injunctions when movant relies on information-and-belief evidence)