Three Dog Bakery, LLC v. Crit, Inc.
4:25-cv-00217
| W.D. Mo. | Jun 17, 2025Background
- Three Dog Bakery, LLC (the franchisor) alleges Crit, Inc. and the Critselous individuals (former franchisees) breached a franchise agreement and misappropriated trade secrets by opening a competing pet bakery in the same location previously used as a franchise store.
- Three Dog Bakery sought and obtained a preliminary injunction prohibiting the defendants from violating the noncompete clause and from using proprietary marks, equipment, and trade secrets.
- The defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing for modification of the injunction, a requirement for Plaintiff to post a bond, and for expedited discovery and an evidentiary hearing.
- The court denied reconsideration of the injunction but required Plaintiff to post a $250,000 bond and ordered expedited scheduling.
- The court encouraged the parties to reach a stipulated preliminary injunction to possibly avoid the bond and schedule requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Injunction Reconsideration | Injunction proper; defendants breached and misused confidential info | Injunction too broad; disputes over breach and ownership; no irreparable harm | Denied—no new evidence or legal error; arguments previously waived or inadequately raised |
| Preliminary Injunction Bond | Agreed some bond is needed; $50,000 sufficient | $750,000 bond needed to protect against loss | Bond set at $250,000 as reasonable estimate for duration of case |
| Expedited Discovery/Evidence | Not directly opposed in ruling | Requested expedited process and hearing | Granted—expedited schedule appropriate; parties to file a schedule |
| Noncompete Enforceability | Enforceable under facts, properly protects business | Unenforceable, harms defendants | Waived by defendant’s prior briefing; argument not considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Arnold v. Wood, 238 F.3d 992 (8th Cir. 2001) (motions to reconsider are not for reargument)
- Arnold v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc., 627 F.3d 716 (8th Cir. 2010) (motions to reconsider only correct manifest errors or present new evidence)
- Richland/Wilkin Joint Powers Auth. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 826 F.3d 1030 (8th Cir. 2016) (bond is generally required for preliminary injunctions, with exceptions)
- Stockslager v. Carroll Elec. Coop. Corp., 528 F.2d 949 (8th Cir. 1976) (bond amount for injunction at court's discretion)
- Satcher v. Univ. of Ark. at Pine Bluff Bd. of Trs., 558 F.3d 731 (8th Cir. 2009) (failure to oppose argument waives it)
- Barham v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 441 F.3d 581 (8th Cir. 2006) (court generally does not consider new arguments in a reply brief)