Bridgestone Hosepower, LLC v. Eismann
| Bridgestone Hosepower, LLC |
| Christopher E. Eismann |
| 2:2021cv02121 |
| November 29, 2021 |
| US District Court for the District of Nevada |
| Gloria M Navarro |
| Elayna J Youchah |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1330 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 17, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 20 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Plaintiff Bridgestone Hosepower, LLC. Responses due by 2/4/2022. (Lee, Marcus) |
| Filing 19 AFFIDAVIT of Service re #1 Complaint, #8 Summons Issued by Plaintiff Bridgestone Hosepower, LLC. (Lee, Marcus) |
| Filing 18 NOTICE of Withdrawal of #5 Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Bridgestone Hosepower, LLC . (Lee, Marcus) |
| Filing 17 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 12/28/2021. Pending before the Court is the #16 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the #5 Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Second Request) filed by Defendant Christopher M. Eismann ("Defendant"). Previously, the Court denied Defendant's #13 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the #5 Motion for Preliminary Injunction (First Request) because Defendant did not clearly identify the deadline for responding to the #5 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Order 1:13-25, ECF No. #14 ). In the instant #16 Motion for Extension of Time, Defendant states that the deadline to respond to the #5 Motion for Preliminary Injunction is January 5, 2022, because the deadline must be two (2) weeks after Defendant's counsel appeared in the case on December 22, 2022. (Mot. Extension Time, 4:4-11, ECF No. #16 ); see also Local Rule 7-2(b) (explaining that parties have fourteen (14) days to respond to a motion they have been served with, other than a motion for summary judgment). Defendant now requests an additional five (5) days to file a Response to the #5 Motion for Preliminary Injunction because Defendant's counsel was recently retained. For good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's #16 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the #5 Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Second Request) is GRANTED. Defendant shall have until January 10, 2022, to file a Response to the #5 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff Bridgestone Hosepower, LLC shall have until January 17, 2022, to file a Reply. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EH) |
| Filing 16 MOTION to Extend Time (Second Request) re #5 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, #14 Order on Motion to Extend/Shorten Time by Defendant Christopher E. Eismann. (Albright, Mark) |
Filing 15
ORDER Denying #2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 12/27/2021.(Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)
|
|
Filing 14
ORDER Denying #13 Motion to Extend Time. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah on 12/27/2021.(Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)
|
| Filing 13 MOTION to Extend Time (First Request) re #5 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, #2 Motion for TRO by Defendant Christopher E. Eismann. (Albright, Mark) |
| Filing 12 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Mark Albright on behalf of Defendant Christopher E. Eismann. (Albright, Mark) |
| Filing 11 NOTICE of Corrected Image/Document re #9 Supplement, by Plaintiff Bridgestone Hosepower, LLC. (Service of corrected image is attached.) (Lee, Marcus) |
| Filing 10 NOTICE of Corrected Image/Document re #9 Supplement, by Plaintiff Bridgestone Hosepower, LLC. (Service of corrected image is attached.) (Lee, Marcus) |
| Filing 9 View Corrected Images #10 , #11 as to Declarations 2 and 3 only SUPPLEMENT to #2 Motion for TRO by Plaintiff Bridgestone Hosepower, LLC (Attachments: #1 Declaration Declaration of Inku Nam, #2 Declaration Declaration of J. Palmer Clarkson, #3 Declaration Declaration of Tony Massahos) (Lee, Marcus) Modified on 12/21/2021 (MR). |
| Filing 8 SUMMONS ISSUED as to Christopher E. Eismann re #1 Complaint. (KF) |
| Filing 7 PROPOSED SUMMONS to be issued by Plaintiff Bridgestone Hosepower, LLC. (Lee, Marcus) |
| Filing 6 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 12/2/2021. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Bridgestone Hosepower, LLC's ("Plaintiff's") #2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. After reviewing Plaintiff's #2 Motion and #1 Complaint, the Court is unconvinced that it has jurisdiction over this matter. Plaintiff must provide specific, factual allegations showing how the case in controversy exceeds $75,000. See Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003) ("Where it is not facially evident from the complaint that more than $75,000 is in controversy, the [complaining] party must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold....Conclusory allegations as to the amount in controversy are insufficient."). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff show cause as to why the Court should not dismiss this action for failure to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. 1332. As to the merits of the #2 Motion, Plaintiff has failed to provide specific facts clearly showing that providing Defendant Christopher M. Eismann ("Defendant") notice will result in immediate and irreparable harm to Plaintiff. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A); Nevada v. United States, 364 F. Supp. 3d 1146, 1151 (D. Nev. 2019), appeal dismissed, 783 F. App'x 700 (9th Cir. 2019) (explaining that allegations of irreparable harm must be grounded in "actual evidence, and not merely conclusory statements or unsupported allegations"). For instance, Plaintiff provides no evidence to show Defendant is helping Midwest Hose launch its "Mobile Service" other than an alleged business card indicating Defendant purportedly works in Santa Fe Springs, California. (TRO 13:3-9, ECF No. #2 ); (Business Card, Ex. 2 to Mot. for Prelim. Inj., ECF No. [5-2]). Similarly, Plaintiff fails to provide evidence to support the following allegations: (1) that Defendant is "making sales calls from Phoenix, Arizona and advertising a new location" there, (TRO 6:23-24); (2) that Defendant has used or is using confidential information he acquired in Plaintiff's employ while allegedly working for Midwest Hose, (Id. 6:25-7:7); and (3) that Defendant working for Midwest Hose will cause Plaintiff to "forever lose its competitive advantage," (See id. 13:11-14). Accordingly, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff also show cause as to why the Court should not deny the #2 Motion for failure to show irreparable harm will result by providing Defendant notice. Plaintiff shall have until December 16, 2021, to file a brief, not to exceed ten pages, addressing the Court's two concerns regarding jurisdiction and irreparable harm. Failure to comply with this Order may result in this case being dismissed without prejudice.(Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EH) |
| Filing 5 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Plaintiff Bridgestone Hosepower, LLC. Responses due by 12/14/2021. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit Exhibit B) (Lee, Marcus) |
| Filing 4 STANDING ORDER. This case has been assigned to the Honorable Judge Gloria M. Navarro. Judge Navarro's Chambers Practices, which are posted on the U.S. District Court, District of Nevada public website, may also be accessed directly via this hyperlink #www.nvd.uscourts.gov. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC) |
| Filing 3 CLERK'S NOTICE. Attorney Action Required to ECF No. #2 . Document was not filed pursuant to LR IC 2-2(b). For each type of relief requested or purpose, a separate document must be filed. Counsel is advised to file ONLY the motion for Preliminary Injunction located in ECF No. #2 as a separate entry to be in compliance with LR IC 2-2(b) and LR IC 2-2(c) by filing two separate documents for each request or purpose. DO NOT refile the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. (no image attached) (DKJ) |
| Case randomly assigned to Judge Gloria M. Navarro and Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah. ***Emergency motion previously filed in case.*** (JQC) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Plaintiff Bridgestone Hosepower, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order Proposed Temporary Restraining Order) (Lee, Marcus) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants (Filing fee $402 receipt number 0978-6713919) by Bridgestone Hosepower, LLC. Proof of service due by 2/27/2022. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Lee, Marcus) NOTICE of Certificate of Interested Parties requirement: Under Local Rule 7.1-1, a party must immediately file its disclosure statement with its first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the court. |
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 Nevada District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Bridgestone Hosepower, LLC v. Eismann | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Bridgestone Hosepower, LLC | |
| Represented By: | Inku Nam |
| Represented By: | Marcus Lee |
| 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: Christopher E. Eismann | |
| Represented By: | Mark Albright |
| 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.
