CliftonLarsonAllen LLP v. Basin Tax and Accounting PLLC

Opinion

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

CLIFTONLARSONALLEN LLP, a CASE NO: 2:25-CV-0086-TOR Minnesota Limited Partnership, ORDER DENYING PRELIMINARY Plaintiff, INJUNCTION v. BASIN TAX & ACCOUNTING, PLLC, a Washington limited liability company; CLEON C LAASSEN, an individual; CODY PARRISH, an individual; and AUDRA LEITZ- ECKENBERG, an individual,

Defendants.

BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. ECF No. 4. This matter was heard without oral argument. The Court has reviewed the record and files herein and is fully informed. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 4) is DENIED. A. Preliminary Injunction

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, the Court may grant preliminary injunctive relief in order to prevent “immediate and irreparable injury.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). To obtain this relief, a plaintiff must

demonstrate: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likelihood of irreparable injury in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that a balancing of the hardships weighs in plaintiff’s favor; and (4) that a preliminary injunction will advance the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20

(2008); M.R. v. Dreyfus, 697 F.3d 706, 725 (9th Cir. 2012). Under the Winter test, a plaintiff must satisfy each element for injunctive relief. Alternatively, the Ninth Circuit also permits a “sliding scale” approach

under which an injunction may be issued if there are “serious questions going to the merits” and “the balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor,” assuming the plaintiff also satisfies the two other Winter factors. All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[A] stronger showing of

one element may offset a weaker showing of another.”); see also Farris v. Seabrook, 677 F.3d 858, 864 (9th Cir. 2012) (“We have also articulated an alternate formulation of the Winter test, under which serious questions going to the

merits and a balance of hardships that tips sharply towards the plaintiff can support issuance of a preliminary injunction, so long as the plaintiff also shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the public interest.”

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Plaintiff requests an Order enjoining Defendants from using and possessing any proprietary information belonging to Plaintiff, including its trade secrets, and

from soliciting Plaintiff’s clients and interfering with the relationship Plaintiff enjoys with its clients. B. Likelihood of Success on the Merits To obtain injunctive relief, Plaintiff must show that there are “serious

questions going to the merits” of its claim, and that it is likely to succeed on those questions of merit. Cottrell, 632 F.3d at 1131; Farris, 677 F.3d at 865. Based on the evidence before the Court, Plaintiff has not shown that it is

likely to succeed on the merits of its claims. Defendants have provided sworn declarations to contest Plaintiff’s allegations. Based on the disputed facts at issue, the Court cannot issue preliminary injunctive relief. C. Irreparable Injury

Plaintiff contends it will suffer irreparable injury absent preliminary injunctive relief. However, Plaintiff has not provided the Court with sufficient facts to support its claim of irreparable harm.

// D. Balancing of Equities and Public Interest Finally, Plaintiff contends that the balance of equities and public interest weigh in favor of granting injunctive relief in this case. However, Plaintiff has not shown that the balance of equities and the public interest would support an injunction at this time. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 4) is DENIED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and furnish copies to counsel. 10}} DATED April 21, 2025. O42 elias YM Was THOMAS O. RICE <=> United States District Judge