Polyportables, LLC v. Endurequest
1:16-cv-01291
| E.D. Cal. | Sep 6, 2016Background
- Polyportables (GA) designs and sells the portable sink “Tag Along,” a high-revenue product.
- Endurequest (manufacturer) and its owner Dewing previously agreed by contract (warehouse distribution and a 2003 non-compete) to keep Polyportables’ information confidential and not use it to produce competing products.
- Sales manager Robert Davis worked with Polyportables from 2002–Jan. 2016, signed an employee handbook acknowledging confidentiality, and was a silent investor in Endurequest.
- In 2013–14 Polyportables and Endurequest discussed redesigns; Polyportables provided proprietary redesign input.
- In Feb. 2016 Endurequest displayed a prototype “Stowaway” sink allegedly reflecting Polyportables’ redesign ideas and later sold units to Polyportables’ customers (including orders diverted from Polyportables).
- Polyportables filed suit and moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO) on Aug. 31, 2016 seeking to enjoin misappropriation/unfair competition; the court denied the TRO for undue delay and lack of imminent irreparable harm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a TRO/preliminary injunction should issue to stop alleged trade secret misappropriation and unfair competition | Polyportables argued Endurequest/Dewing/Davis used confidential, proprietary redesign information to produce and sell the Stowaway, harming sales and causing irreparable injury | Defendants impliedly contested imminence/need for last-minute relief and/or disputed plaintiff’s entitlement; court focused on plaintiff’s delay rather than resolving merits | Denied TRO: plaintiff unduly delayed seeking emergency relief (knew of prototype by Feb. 2016 and customer diversion by June 2016) so imminent irreparable harm not established |
| Whether plaintiff demonstrated likelihood of success on the merits (trade secret/noncompete claims) | Plaintiff asserted contractual confidentiality/non‑compete violations and misappropriation based on documented redesign discussions and agreements | Defendants’ substantive defenses not resolved; court declined to assess likelihood of success because plaintiff failed the imminence/delay requirement for TRO | Court did not find plaintiff met TRO standard; merits left for later proceedings |
| Whether delay undermines claim of imminent irreparable harm | Plaintiff claimed uncertainty about whether Endurequest would compete directly, justifying delay | Defendants pointed (through record) to plaintiff’s own contemporaneous knowledge and customer reports establishing competitive conduct earlier | Court found plaintiff’s explanations insufficient; months-long delay undermined alleged imminence and irreparable harm |
| Whether relief should be denied without prejudice to a properly noticed preliminary injunction | Plaintiff sought emergency, immediate relief via TRO | Defendants opposed emergency relief; court noted Local Rule 231(b) requires consideration of delay | Denied without prejudice; plaintiff may seek a regularly noticed preliminary injunction |
Key Cases Cited
- Stuhlbarg Intern. Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2001) (TRO standard is substantially identical to preliminary injunction standard)
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (plaintiff must show likelihood of irreparable harm and that injunction is in the public interest)
- Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) (serious questions plus balance of hardships can support injunction only alongside likelihood of irreparable harm and public‑interest showing)
- Center for Food Safety v. Vilsack, 636 F.3d 1166 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining Winter’s standard for injunctions)