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