Matrix Sciences International Inc, a Delaware corporation v. Jamie Larralde, an individual, Randy Hempel, an individual, and Cropcare Analytics LLC, a Washington limited liability company

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: March 25, 2026
• Docket: 2:26-cv-00091
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 FILED IN THE 2 U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 Mar 25, 2026 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 MATRIX SCIENCES INTERNATIONAL No. 2:26-CV-00091-SAB 10 INC, a Delaware corporation, 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING 12 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 13 JAMIE LARRALDE, an individual, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 14 RANDY HEMPEL, an individual, and 15 CROPCARE ANALYTICS LLC, a 16 Washington limited liability company, 17 Defendants. 18 19 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 20 2. Plaintiff is represented by Johanna Tomlinson and Caleb A. Hatch. Defendants 21 are represented by Bret J. Uhrich and Jillian A. Harlington. The Motion was 22 considered without oral argument. 23 Plaintiff provides analysis and advisory services in the agri-food supply 24 chain, and it requires employees with access to its laboratory systems, customers, 25 and technical processes to execute a Confidentiality and Nonsolicitation 26 Agreement (CNA) as a condition of employment. The individual Defendants each 27 executed CNAs in May 2022. In these CNAs, Defendants agreed not to use or 28 disclose Plaintiff’s confidential information, not to solicit Plaintiff’s employees or 1 customers during and for one year after employment, and Defendant Hempel 2 agreed not to engage in competitive activity within 90 miles of Plaintiff’s facilities 3 for one year after the end of employment. Plaintiff asserts Defendants had access 4 to Plaintiff’s protectable trade secrets, proprietary workflows, internal software 5 tools, pricing data, customer relationships, and subcontractor relationships. 6 While still employed by Plaintiff, Defendants allegedly began planning a 7 competing laboratory business, discussed their venture with another employee and 8 solicited him to join them, discussed forming a competing business venture with 9 Plaintiff’s customers, and contacted an existing subcontractor regarding 10 overlapping services. In 2024, while still employed by Plaintiff, Defendants 11 formed Cropcare Analytics, LLC (Cropcare). 12 Plaintiff now requests the Court issue a preliminary injunction enjoining 13 Defendants from breaching their contracts and fiduciary duties to Plaintiff and 14 from misusing Plaintiff’s proprietary information. 15 In their response, Defendants assert Cropcare is administratively dissolved 16 and has no operating agreement, active employees, or other assets or agreements 17 that would support the active operation of the company. Defendants further dispute 18 Plaintiff’s allegation that they contacted customers and assert the conversation with 19 the subcontractor was not in violation of the CNAs as the conversation had no 20 bearing on the subcontractor’s continuing relationship with Plaintiff. Lastly, 21 Defendants assert they do not have access to any protectable trade secrets. 22 Preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders are extraordinary 23 and drastic remedies that “should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear 24 showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 25 972 (1997). To successfully move for a temporary restraining order, the moving 26 party must establish: (1) the likelihood that the movant will succeed on the merits, 27 (2) the movant is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive 28 relief, (3) the balance of equities tips in the movant’s favor, and (4) the injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24- 25 (2008). 3 Significant factual disputes exist regarding, but not limited to, whether Defendants contacted customers of Plaintiff about forming a competing business, 5|| the nature of the conversation between Defendants and the subcontractor, and whether Defendants have access to Plaintiff's protectable trade secrets. Plaintiff has the burden of establishing the likelihood of success on the 8|| merits of each of its claims, and due to the existence of these factual disputes, 9)| Plaintiff fails to meet that burden. Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Microsoft Corp., 136 F.4th 954, 967 (9th Cir. 2025); Thomas v. Cnty. of L.A., 978 F.2d 504, 509 (9th 11}| Cir. 1992). 12 Further, Plaintiff has failed to establish a likelihood of irreparable harm in 13|| the absence of injunctive relief. Cropcare is administratively dissolved, and Plaintiff has provided no evidence to support its contention that Defendants are 15|| likely to engage in any behavior prohibited by the CNAs nor that they are likely to 16|| misappropriate any trade secrets. A mere possibility of harm is not sufficient to 17|| support the imposition of a preliminary injunction. Winter, 555 U.S. at 22. 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 19 l. Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 2, is 20)|| DENIED. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is hereby directed to 22\| file this Order and provide copies to counsel. 23 DATED this 25th day of March 2026.

26 sin in phar 27 Chief United States District Judge 28 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY TRTTTIRTIATIART #4