Defendant’S Motion To Continue Hearing On
Summary
Defendant's motion to continue hearing, Document 17 filed May 11, 2020, in 3M Company v. TAC2 Global LLC, Case No. 8:20-cv-1003-T-35CPT, in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. The motion asks the Court to continue the hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction for ten to fifteen days, and to let Defendant file its response and supporting declarations up to 5 days before the rescheduled hearing. It states that the Hearing Order setting a telephonic hearing for May 12, 2020 was served on May 11, 2020, so that TAC2 had only one day notice. A certificate of good faith states that Plaintiff's counsel indicated they could not agree to continue the hearing. The motion is signed /s/ Amy E. Stoll.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
- Date
- 2020-04-30
Cite this document
“Defendant’S Motion To Continue Hearing On.”
Original at ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov, dated 2020-04-30. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/2020-04-30-t-35cpt-v-tac2-global-llc/
, SHA-256 e7de830410091c0b1761ad222d82bb80681c54b7c0e5292d4c13d41484e108c3.Full text
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION 3M COMPANY Plaintiff, CASE NO. 8:20-cv-1003-T-35CPT v. TAC2 GLOBAL LLC Defendant. / DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, TAC2 GLOBAL LLC, by and through its undersigned counsel, pursuant to M.D. Fla. Local Rule 3.09, herein files this Motion to Continue Hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction and in support thereof, states as follows: 1. This is an action for injunctive relief and damages against TAC2 GLOBAL LLC (“TAC2” or “Defendant”). 2. On April 30, 2020, Plaintiff commenced this action by filing its Complaint [D.E. 1]. Defendant first learned of the lawsuit on or about May 1, 2020 when contacted by a reporter, but Defendant was not aware of any motion for injunctive relief being filed with the lawsuit. 3. Defendant was served with the Complaint on May 6, 2020. 4. On May 6, 2020, Plaintiff filed, but did not serve, its forty-nine (49) page, inclusive of exhibits, Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction and Supporting Memorandum of Law [D.E. 8]. Plaintiff attempted to have a Temporary Restraining Order entered without notice to Defendant, which was denied by this Court. [D.E. 12] Case 8:20-cv-01003-MSS-CPT Document 17 Filed 05/11/20 Page 1 of 4 PageID 337 2 5. On May 8, 2020, at approximately 2:24 p.m. Derek McAfee, President of TAC2 was served via electronic mail with a copy of multiple documents filed on the CM/ECF portal, including Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [D.E. 8], Declarations of Charles Stobbie and David A. Crist, [D.E. 9 & 10 respectively], and the Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [D.E. 12]. 6. On May 11, 2020, at approximately 9:47 a.m. Derek McAfee, President of TAC2 GLOBAL LLC, was served via electronic mail with the Hearing Order Setting a two-hour telephonic hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (the “Motion”) for May 12, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. [D.E. 15]. 7. Although the Hearing Order was entered on Friday, May 8, 2020 it was not served on TAC2 until Monday morning. Thus, TAC2 had only one day notice of the hearing. 8. TAC2 has not had a chance to fully investigate and respond to the allegations in the Complaint and Motion. Likewise, undersigned counsel does not have the time necessary to adequately respond to the allegations and legal analysis contained in the Motion and accompanying Memorandum of Law before tomorrow’s hearing. 9. Undersigned counsel is in the process of reviewing the Motion and supporting Declarations and obtaining and reviewing materials from TAC2 to prepare an adequate defense to the Motion. In the limited time available TAC2 has filed the Declaration of Derek McAffee that disputes the allegations made in the Motion and sets out the basis for a meritorious defenses as well as facts indicating that the entry of an overly broad injunction would cause significant damage to TAC2 and its customers. 10. Defendant should have the opportunity to file a full Response in Opposition to the Motion and supporting Memorandum of Law, as well as any additional Declarations necessary to adequately defend itself against the allegations in the Motion. Case 8:20-cv-01003-MSS-CPT Document 17 Filed 05/11/20 Page 2 of 4 PageID 338 3 11. Defendant would therefore respectfully request that the hearing on the Motion be continued for a short period of 10-15 days to allow Defendant’s counsel time to file an adequate response to the Motion. Pursuant to Local Rule 4.06(b)(3) Defendant’s response would be due seven (7) days prior to the hearing. If this Motion for Continuance is granted Defendant would also request that Defendant be allowed to file its response and supporting declarations up to 5 days prior to the rescheduled hearing. 12. Defendant has meritorious defenses to the Motion and therefore no prejudice will be suffered by Plaintiff in continuing the hearing. MEMORANDUM OF LAW The requirements of a fair hearing on a preliminary injunction motion require giving defendants the ability to present controverting factual data and such opportunity is illusory if there is not adequate notice of plaintiff’s claims. Four Seasons Hotels And Resorts, B.V. v. Consorcio Barr, S.A., 320 F.3d 1205, 1211 (11th Cir. 2003)(“It goes without saying that the requirements of a fair hearing include notice of the claims of opposing party and an opportunity to meet them”). The Court in Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts, B.V., concluded that a continuance was required where the defendant had been served with the Motion for a TRO and a notice of hearing only two days prior to the hearing. Id. (“The two day notice period provided insufficient time to read the pertinent documents, obtain and consult with counsel, and locate witnesses or obtain affidavits supporting the Appellants’ position.”) Failure to provide the Defendants with the necessary continuance to prepare and submit its response to the Motion ultimately would lead to the reversal of any injunction entered under such circumstances. See, Marshall Durbin Farms, Inc. v. Nat'l Farmers Org., Inc., 446 F.2d 353, 356– 57 (5th Cir. 1971)(reversing grant of preliminary injunction where defendants only had a few days to respond to a motion that involved multiple occurrences and supporting affidavits). Case 8:20-cv-01003-MSS-CPT Document 17 Filed 05/11/20 Page 3 of 4 PageID 339 4 WHEREFORE, Defendant, TAC2 GLOBAL LLC, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant its motion to continue hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction for ten to fifteen days, and allow Defendant to file their response and supporting declarations up to 5 days prior to the rescheduled hearing time, and for all other relief the Court deems just and proper. /s/ Amy E. Stoll __________________________________ Amy E. Stoll, Esquire Florida Bar No. 150959 Richard C. Alvarez, Esquire Florida Bar No. 031615 OLDER LUNDY & ALVAREZ Counsel to Defendant 1000 West Cass Street Tampa, Florida 33606 triallawyers@olalaw.com astoll@olalaw.com CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL HEREBY CERTIFIES that it conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel, in good faith and in accordance with Local Rule 3.01(g), and Plaintiff’s counsel indicated they could not agree to continue the hearing. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL HEREBY CERTIFIES that on May 11, 2020, a true and correct copy of this motion was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system so that notice will be sent to all counsel of record. /s/ Amy E. Stoll __________________________________ Amy E. Stoll, Esquire Florida Bar No. 150959 Case 8:20-cv-01003-MSS-CPT Document 17 Filed 05/11/20 Page 4 of 4 PageID 340
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.flmd.376843.17.0.pdf
- Size
- 978,248 bytes
- SHA-256
- e7de830410091c0b1761ad222d82bb80681c54b7c0e5292d4c13d41484e108c3
- Original
- PACER (login required)