Mm Dev. Co., Inc. v. Tryke Companies So Nv, Llc, 81938

MM Development (doing business as Planet 13) and Tryke Companies (doing business as Reef) are competing Las Vegas cannabis dispensaries located across the street from each other.
Planet 13 paid rideshare drivers to bring customers to its dispensary; Tryke alleged Planet 13 unlawfully diverted customers by paying drivers.
Tryke sued for civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting, and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; its evidence included word‑of‑mouth reports and a secret‑shopper investigation.
The Eighth Judicial District Court denied MM Development’s motion to dismiss, then granted Tryke a preliminary injunction enjoining Planet 13 from paying or advertising payments to rideshare drivers.
The Nevada Supreme Court reviewed the injunction for abuse of discretion, focusing on whether Tryke showed likely success on the merits and, critically, irreparable harm not remediable by money damages.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Tryke)	Defendant's Argument (MM Development / Planet 13)	Held
Likelihood of success on tort claims	Planet 13’s payments intentionally and improperly diverted customers; Tryke likely to prevail	Payments are lawful competitive conduct common in industry	Court did not resolve merits because outcome turned on irreparable harm; district court assumed likelihood but reversal rested on other grounds
Irreparable harm without injunction	Continued payments would cause irreparable loss of sales, brand value, customer loyalty, goodwill	Alleged harms are speculative and monetary damages can compensate	Tryke failed to prove irreparable harm; speculation about reputational loss insufficient
Adequacy / calculability of monetary damages	Some harms (brand, goodwill) are not readily monetizable	Tax records and expert analysis can support calculable damages	Monetary damages were at least potentially calculable (e.g., via 1099 records); injunction inappropriate
Abuse of discretion in issuing injunction	Injunction justified to prevent ongoing diversion	District court lacked basis to enjoin because prerequisites for injunctive relief were unmet	Supreme Court reversed: district court abused its discretion by issuing the preliminary injunction

Dixon v. Thatcher, 103 Nev. 414, 742 P.2d 1029 (1987) (plaintiff must prove defendant’s conduct will result in irreparable harm for which money damages are inadequate to obtain an injunction)
Crockett v. Sahara Realty Corp., 95 Nev. 197, 591 P.2d 1135 (1979) (free competition is privileged; interference must be intentional and improper)
Frantz v. Johnson, 116 Nev. 455, 999 P.2d 351 (2000) (a party may use expert economists and available records to calculate damages without mathematical exactitude)
Hetter v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 110 Nev. 513, 874 P.2d 762 (1994) (tax records may be discoverable and relevant to damages)
Basicomputer Corp. v. Scott, 973 F.2d 507 (6th Cir. 1992) (injury not fully compensable by money damages when the nature of the loss makes calculation difficult)
Shores v. Global Experience Specialists, Inc., 134 Nev. 503, 422 P.3d 1238 (2018) (district court abuses discretion when it disregards controlling law in issuing relief)