Microstar Logistics LLC v. Cavalier Distributing Company, Inc.
1:24-cv-00647
| S.D. Ohio | Mar 14, 2025Background
- MicroStar Logistics LLC (MicroStar) provides reusable beer kegs to breweries, who fill them for distribution.
- Cavalier Distributing (Cavalier) is a distributor that delivers filled kegs to bars and restaurants, then returns empties to MicroStar.
- The parties operated without a written contract for over 15 years but now dispute whether Cavalier owes MicroStar keg deposit payments.
- MicroStar alleges Cavalier failed to pay required keg deposits, causing MicroStar financial loss; Cavalier disputes any contractual obligation.
- After MicroStar sued for the alleged debt, Cavalier countersued, claiming MicroStar made false claims about Cavalier to suppliers, harming Cavalier's business.
- Cavalier sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) to stop MicroStar from making further allegedly misleading statements during litigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Obligation to pay keg deposits | Cavalier was contractually obligated | No contract or obligation existed | Serious questions — favors preserving status quo until resolved |
| Lanham Act false advertising/ODTPA | No false/misleading statements made | MicroStar made false/misleading statements harming business | Cavalier showed likelihood of success on these claims |
| Tortious interference | No improper interference | MicroStar intentionally damaged relationships | Cavalier showed likelihood of success on these claims |
| Irreparable harm and TRO | Harm is economic and compensable | Harm to business relationships is irreparable | Irreparable harm likely, TRO warranted against MicroStar |
Key Cases Cited
- Va. State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Va. Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748 (commercial speech analysis and its lesser First Amendment protection)
- Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118 (Lanham Act standing and scope of claims for false advertising)
- Frisch’s Restaurants, Inc. v. Shoney’s Inc., 759 F.2d 1261 (factors and balancing for preliminary injunctive relief)
- Basicomputer Corp. v. Scott, 973 F.2d 507 (loss of customer goodwill as irreparable harm for injunctions)
- Pom Wonderful, LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 573 U.S. 102 (competitor standing under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act)