John A. Grimaldi, D.O., Inc. v. Restis

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: April 23, 2020
• Docket: 3:20-cv-00691
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 JOHN A. GRIMALDI, D.O., INC., Case No.: 20cv691-CAB-BLM

13 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 14 v. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

15 WILLIAM RESTIS, and JULIE RESTIS, [Doc. No. 3] 16 Defendants. 17

18 19 On April 10, 2020, Plaintiff John A. Grimaldi, D.O, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed a 20 complaint against Defendants William Restis and Julie Restis (“Defendants”) for (1) 21 Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act; (2) Violation of the Computer Data 22 Access and Fraud Act; (3) Fraud; (4) Breach of Contract; (5) Tortious Interference with 23 Contract; (6) Trespass; (7) Misappropriation of Trade Secrets; and (8) Declaratory 24 Judgment. [Doc. No. 1.] On the same date, Plaintiff also filed an Ex Parte Application for 25 Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause for Preliminary Injunction, by 26 which Plaintiff sought to restrain Defendants from “using, disclosing, or otherwise making 27 accessible to any person [] Protected Health Information [“PHI”] and/or Personally 28 Identifying Information [“PII”] of Plaintiff’s patients” that Defendants accessed from 1 Plaintiff’s Electronic Medical Records System (“EMR”) without authorization on or 2 around February 20 and March 2, 2020.” [Doc. No. 3.] 3 On April 10, 2020, District Judge Sammartino granted the Ex Parte Application for 4 a Temporary Restraining Order and set a briefing schedule and hearing for a Preliminary 5 Injunction. [Doc. No. 4.] On April 16, 2020, Defendants filed an opposition to the ex parte 6 application. [Doc. Nos. 10, 11.] On April 17, 2020, the case was transferred to District 7 Judge Bencivengo. [Doc. No. 12.] On April 20, 2020, Plaintiff filed a reply to the 8 opposition. [Doc. No. 15.] 9 10 On April 23, 2020 the Court held a telephonic hearing regarding what is now a 11 motion for preliminary injunction. Charles S. LiMandri, Esq., John Hilary Barkley, Esq., 12 and Paul Michael Jonna, Esq. appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. Douglas A. Pettit, Esq. 13 appeared on behalf of Defendant William Restis. William Richard Restis, Esq. appeared 14 on behalf of Defendant Julie Restis. For the reasons stated at the hearing, and as set forth 15 below, the motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED. 16 DISCUSSION 17 A preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” 18 Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008); see Earth Island Inst. v. 19 Carlton, 626 F.3d 462, 469 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[P]laintiffs seeking a preliminary injunction 20 face a difficult task in proving that they are entitled to this ‘extraordinary remedy.’”) 21 (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 24). It is “a device for preserving the status quo and 22 preventing the irreparable loss of rights before judgment.” Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix 23 Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984). “The grant or denial of a motion for 24 a preliminary injunction lies within the discretion of the district court.” Johnson v. 25 California State Bd. of Accountancy, 72 F.3d 1427, 1429 (9th Cir. 1995). 26 In Winter, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction 27 must establish “[1] that he is likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer 28 1 || irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in 2 favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. The 3 || Ninth Circuit balances these “Winter factors” using a “sliding scale” approach, where “a 4 ||stronger showing of one element may offset a weaker showing of another.” All. for the 5 || Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (th Cir. 2011). However, Winter “requires 6 || the plaintiff to make a showing on all four prongs.” /d. at 1135. 7 For the reasons stated during the telephonic hearing, Plaintiff has failed to establish 8 likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm and, therefore, is not entitled to a 9 || preliminary injunction. There is no admissible evidence of violation of the Computer 10 || Fraud and Abuse Act because Defendant Julie Restis was given access to Plaintiff's EMR. 11 || There is no admissible evidence of misappropriation of trade secrets, as the only admissible 12 ||}evidence before the Court is that Defendant Julie Restis used the information for a 13 protected activity (filing a complaint with the Medical Review Board). In addition, 14 || Plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm, as Defendants have stated under oath that they 15 || are not in possession of any Protected Health Information related to Plaintiff’s patients.’ 16 || Given that Plaintiff has failed to make a showing on at least two of the Winter prongs, the 17 || motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED. 18 CONCLUSION 19 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED. 20 It is SO ORDERED. 21 ||Dated: April 23, 2020 € Z 22 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28 Should evidence surface that Defendants’ representations are false, Plaintiff is free to bring the appropriate motion for sanctions.