Technomedia Solutions, LLC v. Scopetto

Justia Dockets & Filings Eleventh Circuit Florida Middle District Technomedia Solutions, LLC v. Scopetto

Technomedia Solutions, LLC v. Scopetto

Plaintiff:	Technomedia Solutions, LLC
Defendant:	Morgan Scopetto
Case Number:	6:2013cv01061
Filed:	July 12, 2013
Court:	US District Court for the Middle District of Florida
Office:	Orlando Office
County:	Orange
Presiding Judge:	Charlene Edwards Honeywell
Presiding Judge:	Gregory J. Kelly
Nature of Suit:	Contract: Other
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Other Contract
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
December 13, 2013	Filing 50 ORDER denying 34 Defendant Scopetto's Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint; granting 9 Plaintiff Technomedia's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. All of the factors under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a) and Local Rul e 4.06 that should be considered in granting a preliminary injunction have been satisfied. Defendant Scopetto, along with all of her agents, servants, employers, supervisors, employees, and attorneys, and those other persons in active concert or par ticipation with her who receive actual notice of this Order, are hereby enjoined from soliciting or accepting orders for, or providing, products or services of a kind and nature like or similar to the products sold, or services performed, by Technome dia, from or to any person or entity that has been identified by Technomedia in its Existing and Prospective Customer Lists Submitted to the Court Under Seal at Docket No. 44 for two years (twenty-four months), and are also enjoined from disclosing t his list to anyone. This injunction is conditioned on Plaintiff Technomedia posting a bond in the amount of $250,000.00. Plaintiff shall post a bond in the amount of TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($250,000.00), or, in lieu of bond, P laintiff may submit a cash deposit of $250,000.00 with the Clerk of Court for deposit into the Registry. The bond or cash deposit held in the Registry shall stand as security to recover any attorney's fees and damages incurred by Defendant s in the event it is subsequently determined that the Preliminary Injunction should not have been granted. This injunction will take effect upon the posting of this bond. Plaintiff may, by motion, seek dissolution of this security and return of the cash deposit upon proper grounds. It is FURTHER ORDERED that this injunction shall continue in full force and effect pending trial in this action or further order of the Court. Signed by Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell on 12/13/2013. (BGS)

Date Filed

Document Text

December 13, 2013

Filing 50 ORDER denying 34 Defendant Scopetto's Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint; granting 9 Plaintiff Technomedia's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. All of the factors under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a) and Local Rul e 4.06 that should be considered in granting a preliminary injunction have been satisfied. Defendant Scopetto, along with all of her agents, servants, employers, supervisors, employees, and attorneys, and those other persons in active concert or par ticipation with her who receive actual notice of this Order, are hereby enjoined from soliciting or accepting orders for, or providing, products or services of a kind and nature like or similar to the products sold, or services performed, by Technome dia, from or to any person or entity that has been identified by Technomedia in its Existing and Prospective Customer Lists Submitted to the Court Under Seal at Docket No. 44 for two years (twenty-four months), and are also enjoined from disclosing t his list to anyone. This injunction is conditioned on Plaintiff Technomedia posting a bond in the amount of $250,000.00. Plaintiff shall post a bond in the amount of TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($250,000.00), or, in lieu of bond, P laintiff may submit a cash deposit of $250,000.00 with the Clerk of Court for deposit into the Registry. The bond or cash deposit held in the Registry shall stand as security to recover any attorney's fees and damages incurred by Defendant s in the event it is subsequently determined that the Preliminary Injunction should not have been granted. This injunction will take effect upon the posting of this bond. Plaintiff may, by motion, seek dissolution of this security and return of the cash deposit upon proper grounds. It is FURTHER ORDERED that this injunction shall continue in full force and effect pending trial in this action or further order of the Court. Signed by Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell on 12/13/2013. (BGS)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Florida Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Technomedia Solutions, LLC v. Scopetto
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Technomedia Solutions, LLC
Represented By:	Marisa Elizabeth Rosen
Represented By:	Donald E. Christopher
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Morgan Scopetto
Represented By:	Ladd H. Fassett
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?