8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 MOEMENT, INC., a Delaware Case No. 2:22-cv-2871-WLH-KS 11 corporations
12 Plaintiff, ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S
13 v. MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AS TO 14 DEFENDANTS GROOMORE, GROOMORE, INC., a Delaware 15 corporations; a Delaware corporation, INC. AND CHUNLIANG LIN [265]
16 CHUNLIANG LIN, an individual, JIE ZHANG, an individual, and 17 SONGYUN LIU, an individual,
19 Defendants. 20
22 The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s Motion for Permanent Injunction as to 23 Defendants Groomore, Inc. (“Defendant Groomore”) and Chunliang Lin (“Defendant 24 Lin”) (collectively, “Defendants”) (the “Motion”). (Mot., Docket No. 265). On July 25 18, 2025, the Court held a hearing on the Motion and took the matter under 26 submission. 27 28 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 On April 29, 2022, Plaintiff Moement Inc. (“Plaintiff”) commenced the instant 3 trade secret, copyright infringement and breach of contract action. (Complaint, 4 Docket No. 1). On January 10, 2025, as the case neared trial, the Court recognized an 5 automatic stay as to Defendant Groomore given Defendant’s Groomore filing of 6 bankruptcy. (Docket No. 193). On February 12, 2025, the United States Bankruptcy 7 Judge presiding over Defendant Groomore’s bankruptcy matter lifted the automatic 8 stay with respect to Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief. (Ex. A to Status Report 9 (“Decision to Lift of Stay”), Docket No. 203 at 21). On March 15, 2024, the Court 10 scheduled a trial. (Docket No. 208). 11 On May 12, 2025, Plaintiff proceeded to trial against two Defendants— 12 Defendant Groomore and Defendant Lin on the central theory that Defendants used 13 Plaintiff’s backend source code of its pet grooming scheduling software (“MoeGo 14 v.1”) to launch a competitor business. (Docket No. 229, Minutes of Jury Trial First 15 Day). On May 22, 2025, the jury returned its verdict. (Groomore Verdict Form, 16 Docket No. 252; Lin Verdict Form, Docket No. 254). The jury found both 17 Defendants liable for trade secret misappropriation in violation of the Defend Trade 18 Secrets Act (“DTSA”) and California’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“UTSA”) and 19 copyright infringement in violation of the Copyright Act. (See generally Groomore 20 Verdict Form; Lin Verdict Form). As part of these findings, the jury necessarily 21 found that MoeGo v.1 was Plaintiff’s trade secret and copyrighted material. The jury 22 additionally found Defendant Lin liable for breaches of three contracts: the Founder 23 Advisor Agreement, Independent Contractor Agreement, and Mutual Confidentiality 24 Agreement. (Lin Verdict Form at 6). Based on the evidence presented at trial, the 25 Court hereby confers in the jury’s findings of liability. 26 The jury found Defendant Lin liable for $184,846 in actual losses and $387,216 27 in unjust enrichment due to trade secret misappropriation. (Verdict Form at 6). The 28 jury answered “no” to the question: “Are there additional breach of contract damages 1 that you did not already include in the amounts you entered when [awarding trade 2 secret damages]?” (Id. at 7). Given the bankruptcy stay, the jury was not asked to 3 assess damages as to Defendant Groomore. (See generally Groomore Verdict Form). 4 Following the trial, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion. Plaintiff asks the Court to 5 (1) find in favor of Plaintiff under California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. 6 Prof. Code § 17200 (“UCL”); and (2) enter a permanent injunction against Defendants 7 Groomore and Lin. Defendant timely opposed the motion (Opp’n, Docket No. 279), 8 and Plaintiff timely replied (Docket No. 284). 9 II. UNFAIR COMPETITION CLAIM 10 Plaintiff prevails on its UCL Claim as a matter of law. The UCL “borrows 11 violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices that the unfair 12 competition law makes independently actionable.” Cyntegra, Inc. v. Idexx Lab'ys, 13 Inc., 520 F. Supp. 2d 1199, 1212 (C.D. Cal. 2007), aff'd, 322 F. App'x 569 (9th Cir. 14 2009) (quoting Cel–Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone 15 Co., 20 Cal.4th 163, 180)). Because the Court concurs in the jury’s finding that 16 Defendants Groomore and Lin misappropriated Plaintiff’s trade secrets and infringed 17 upon Plaintiff’s copyrights in violation of federal and state law,1 the Court concludes 18 that Defendants Groomore and Lin violated the UCL. 19 III. PERMANENT INJUNCTION 20 Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants Lin and Groomore 21 from possessing or using Moement’s trade secret and confidential information, 22 requiring Defendants to identify, quarantine and destroy any such information, and 23 authorizing Plaintiff to audit Defendants’ systems and records for compliance at the 24 expense of Defendants. The Court GRANTS in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Permanent 25 Injunction. A subsequent order will provide the full text of the Permanent Injunction. 26
27 1 In reaching this finding, the Court expressly finds the testimony of Plaintiff’s witnesses to be credible and, to the extent his testimony conflicted with the testimony 28 of Plaintiff’s witnesses, Defendant’s testimony not to be credible. 1 A. Legal Standard 2 A party seeking a permanent injunction must demonstrate: (1) that it has 3 suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary 4 damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the 5 balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is 6 warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent 7 injunction. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006). 8 The Copyright Act authorizes courts to grant final injunctions “on such terms as 9 it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement of a copyright.” 17 U.S.C. 10 § 502. The DTSA likewise authorizes courts to grant injunctions to “prevent any 11 actual or threatened misappropriation” of trade secrets. Finally, Plaintiff may seek 12 equitable remedies for Defendant Lin’s breaches of contract, including specific 13 performance by Defendant Lin’s destruction of information secured in violation of his 14 contracts. See E*Trade Fin. Corp. v. Eaton, 305 F. Supp. 3d 1029, 1040 (D. Ariz. 15 2018) (granting preliminary injunction requiring defendant to return or delete 16 confidential information secured in violation of breach of contract, breach of duty of 17 loyalty and interference with contractual expectations). 18 B. Analysis 19 1. Irreparable Injury 20 “District courts consistently conclude that a plaintiff will suffer irreparable 21 harm if its proprietary information is misappropriated.” Monster Energy Co. v. Vital 22 Pharms., Inc., No. EDCV181882JGBSHKX, 2023 WL 8168854, at *18 (C.D. Cal. 23 Oct. 6, 2023), aff'd, No. 23-55451, 2025 WL 1111495 (9th Cir. Apr. 15, 2025). The 24 Court concurs in the jury’s finding that Defendants misappropriated MoeGo v.1—and 25 concludes Plaintiff has experienced irreparable injury. See id. (finding irreparable 26 injury given jury’s finding of malicious and willful misappropriation of trade secrets). 27 So long as Defendants have access to MoeGo v.1 and its derivatives, Plaintiff faces 28 the threat of future, irreparable injury. 1 Further, “a trade secret plaintiff may also demonstrate irreparable injury 2 through a loss in competitive advantage.” Id. A copyright plaintiff may do the same. 3 USA, Inc. v. Rimini St., Inc., 324 F. Supp. 3d 1157, 1164 (D. Nev.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 MOEMENT, INC., a Delaware Case No. 2:22-cv-2871-WLH-KS 11 corporations
12 Plaintiff, ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S
13 v. MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AS TO 14 DEFENDANTS GROOMORE, GROOMORE, INC., a Delaware 15 corporations; a Delaware corporation, INC. AND CHUNLIANG LIN [265]
16 CHUNLIANG LIN, an individual, JIE ZHANG, an individual, and 17 SONGYUN LIU, an individual,
19 Defendants. 20
22 The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s Motion for Permanent Injunction as to 23 Defendants Groomore, Inc. (“Defendant Groomore”) and Chunliang Lin (“Defendant 24 Lin”) (collectively, “Defendants”) (the “Motion”). (Mot., Docket No. 265). On July 25 18, 2025, the Court held a hearing on the Motion and took the matter under 26 submission. 27 28 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 On April 29, 2022, Plaintiff Moement Inc. (“Plaintiff”) commenced the instant 3 trade secret, copyright infringement and breach of contract action. (Complaint, 4 Docket No. 1). On January 10, 2025, as the case neared trial, the Court recognized an 5 automatic stay as to Defendant Groomore given Defendant’s Groomore filing of 6 bankruptcy. (Docket No. 193). On February 12, 2025, the United States Bankruptcy 7 Judge presiding over Defendant Groomore’s bankruptcy matter lifted the automatic 8 stay with respect to Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief. (Ex. A to Status Report 9 (“Decision to Lift of Stay”), Docket No. 203 at 21). On March 15, 2024, the Court 10 scheduled a trial. (Docket No. 208). 11 On May 12, 2025, Plaintiff proceeded to trial against two Defendants— 12 Defendant Groomore and Defendant Lin on the central theory that Defendants used 13 Plaintiff’s backend source code of its pet grooming scheduling software (“MoeGo 14 v.1”) to launch a competitor business. (Docket No. 229, Minutes of Jury Trial First 15 Day). On May 22, 2025, the jury returned its verdict. (Groomore Verdict Form, 16 Docket No. 252; Lin Verdict Form, Docket No. 254). The jury found both 17 Defendants liable for trade secret misappropriation in violation of the Defend Trade 18 Secrets Act (“DTSA”) and California’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“UTSA”) and 19 copyright infringement in violation of the Copyright Act. (See generally Groomore 20 Verdict Form; Lin Verdict Form). As part of these findings, the jury necessarily 21 found that MoeGo v.1 was Plaintiff’s trade secret and copyrighted material. The jury 22 additionally found Defendant Lin liable for breaches of three contracts: the Founder 23 Advisor Agreement, Independent Contractor Agreement, and Mutual Confidentiality 24 Agreement. (Lin Verdict Form at 6). Based on the evidence presented at trial, the 25 Court hereby confers in the jury’s findings of liability. 26 The jury found Defendant Lin liable for $184,846 in actual losses and $387,216 27 in unjust enrichment due to trade secret misappropriation. (Verdict Form at 6). The 28 jury answered “no” to the question: “Are there additional breach of contract damages 1 that you did not already include in the amounts you entered when [awarding trade 2 secret damages]?” (Id. at 7). Given the bankruptcy stay, the jury was not asked to 3 assess damages as to Defendant Groomore. (See generally Groomore Verdict Form). 4 Following the trial, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion. Plaintiff asks the Court to 5 (1) find in favor of Plaintiff under California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. 6 Prof. Code § 17200 (“UCL”); and (2) enter a permanent injunction against Defendants 7 Groomore and Lin. Defendant timely opposed the motion (Opp’n, Docket No. 279), 8 and Plaintiff timely replied (Docket No. 284). 9 II. UNFAIR COMPETITION CLAIM 10 Plaintiff prevails on its UCL Claim as a matter of law. The UCL “borrows 11 violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices that the unfair 12 competition law makes independently actionable.” Cyntegra, Inc. v. Idexx Lab'ys, 13 Inc., 520 F. Supp. 2d 1199, 1212 (C.D. Cal. 2007), aff'd, 322 F. App'x 569 (9th Cir. 14 2009) (quoting Cel–Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone 15 Co., 20 Cal.4th 163, 180)). Because the Court concurs in the jury’s finding that 16 Defendants Groomore and Lin misappropriated Plaintiff’s trade secrets and infringed 17 upon Plaintiff’s copyrights in violation of federal and state law,1 the Court concludes 18 that Defendants Groomore and Lin violated the UCL. 19 III. PERMANENT INJUNCTION 20 Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants Lin and Groomore 21 from possessing or using Moement’s trade secret and confidential information, 22 requiring Defendants to identify, quarantine and destroy any such information, and 23 authorizing Plaintiff to audit Defendants’ systems and records for compliance at the 24 expense of Defendants. The Court GRANTS in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Permanent 25 Injunction. A subsequent order will provide the full text of the Permanent Injunction. 26
27 1 In reaching this finding, the Court expressly finds the testimony of Plaintiff’s witnesses to be credible and, to the extent his testimony conflicted with the testimony 28 of Plaintiff’s witnesses, Defendant’s testimony not to be credible. 1 A. Legal Standard 2 A party seeking a permanent injunction must demonstrate: (1) that it has 3 suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary 4 damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the 5 balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is 6 warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent 7 injunction. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006). 8 The Copyright Act authorizes courts to grant final injunctions “on such terms as 9 it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement of a copyright.” 17 U.S.C. 10 § 502. The DTSA likewise authorizes courts to grant injunctions to “prevent any 11 actual or threatened misappropriation” of trade secrets. Finally, Plaintiff may seek 12 equitable remedies for Defendant Lin’s breaches of contract, including specific 13 performance by Defendant Lin’s destruction of information secured in violation of his 14 contracts. See E*Trade Fin. Corp. v. Eaton, 305 F. Supp. 3d 1029, 1040 (D. Ariz. 15 2018) (granting preliminary injunction requiring defendant to return or delete 16 confidential information secured in violation of breach of contract, breach of duty of 17 loyalty and interference with contractual expectations). 18 B. Analysis 19 1. Irreparable Injury 20 “District courts consistently conclude that a plaintiff will suffer irreparable 21 harm if its proprietary information is misappropriated.” Monster Energy Co. v. Vital 22 Pharms., Inc., No. EDCV181882JGBSHKX, 2023 WL 8168854, at *18 (C.D. Cal. 23 Oct. 6, 2023), aff'd, No. 23-55451, 2025 WL 1111495 (9th Cir. Apr. 15, 2025). The 24 Court concurs in the jury’s finding that Defendants misappropriated MoeGo v.1—and 25 concludes Plaintiff has experienced irreparable injury. See id. (finding irreparable 26 injury given jury’s finding of malicious and willful misappropriation of trade secrets). 27 So long as Defendants have access to MoeGo v.1 and its derivatives, Plaintiff faces 28 the threat of future, irreparable injury. 1 Further, “a trade secret plaintiff may also demonstrate irreparable injury 2 through a loss in competitive advantage.” Id. A copyright plaintiff may do the same. 3 USA, Inc. v. Rimini St., Inc., 324 F. Supp. 3d 1157, 1164 (D. Nev. 2018), aff'd in part, 4 vacated in part on other grounds, remanded, 783 F. App'x 707 (9th Cir. 2019). The 5 evidence at trial demonstrated that Defendants used Plaintiff’s trade secret and 6 copyrighted MoeGo v.1 as a shortcut to launch a competitive product. Additional 7 evidence established that Plaintiff lost profits as a result of Defendant’s 8 misappropriation of trade secrets. Plaintiff thus also suffers irreparable injury given 9 the loss of competitive advantage inflected by Defendants’ possession and use of 10 MoeGo v.1. 11 Finally, evidence presented at trial—including testimony by Plaintiff’s expert 12 Maryellen Sebold and records of emails sent to then-existing MoeGo customers— 13 establishes that Plaintiff lost part of its market share as a result of Defendants’ access 14 to the copy of Moement’s customer database found in Defendant Zhang’s Github 15 account. As such, Plaintiff experienced irreparable harm, and faces the threat of 16 additional harm, as a result of Defendants’ access to or possession of Moement’s 17 customer database. 18 2. Remedies at Law are Inadequate 19 “The terms ‘inadequate remedy at law’ and ‘irreparable harm’ describe two 20 sides of the same coin. If the harm being suffered by plaintiff ... is ‘irreparable,’ then 21 the remedy at law (monetary damages) is ‘inadequate.’” Anhing Corp. v. Thuan 22 Phong Co. Ltd., 2015 WL 4517846, at *23 (C.D. Cal. July 24, 2015) (internal citation 23 omitted). In the instant case, an injunction is needed to address an unresolved risk of 24 future misappropriation and infringement of MoeGo v.1 and use of Plaintiff’s 25 customer data. Second, an injunction is needed to “eliminate any unfair head start 26 [Defendants] may have gained by improper use of confidential information.” Netlist 27 Inc v. Diablo Techs. Inc, No. 13-CV-05962-YGR, 2015 WL 153724, at *7 (N.D. Cal. 28 Jan. 12, 2015). 1 3. Balance of Equities 2 The balance of equities also favors entry of permanent injunction. The Court 3 has already established the hardship faced by Plaintiff in the absence of a permanent 4 injunction. Defendants, by contrast, “cannot claim legitimate hardship resulting from 5 an injunction prohibiting them from engaging in illegal copyright infringement and 6 misappropriation of trade secrets.” iBASEt v. Exacore, LLC, 2014 WL 12576816, at 7 *5 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2014). While the injunction certainly imposes some hardship 8 on Defendants—including the cost of Plaintiff conducting a one-time audit of each 9 Defendant—such an imposition is necessary to (a) ensure Defendants’ compliance 10 with the Court’s order and (b) remedy the harm Defendant caused Plaintiff. 11 4. Public Interest 12 The public interest would not be disserved by entry of a permanent injunction. 13 Defendant has advanced no argument that the public would be harmed by the entry of 14 permanent injunction. (See generally Opp’n). Further, courts evaluating similar 15 claims have found that a permanent injunction furthers the public interest. Id. (“[T]he 16 public receives a benefit when the legitimate rights of copyright holders are 17 vindicated.”); Comet Techs. USA Inc. v. XP Power LLC, No. 20-CV-06408-NC, 2022 18 WL 4625149, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2022) (“Courts in trade secret cases have 19 consistently held that the public interest favors the vindication of intellectual property 20 rights.”). As such, the fourth eBay factor is met. 21 5. Permanent Injunction Terms 22 In the hearing on the Motion, the Court detailed its tentative view of reasonable 23 terms for a permanent injunction as to Defendants Groomore and Lin. The parties 24 provided helpful suggestions for clarifying the proposed terms.2 The Court’s final 25 injunction is forthcoming. In summary, the forthcoming injunction enjoins 26
27 2 At the hearing, Defendant did not present argument against the propriety of an injunction in general. 28 1 | Defendants Lin and Groomore from possessing or using Moement Trade Secret 2 | Information or Moement Confidential Information,’ requires Defendants to identify, 3 | quarantine and destroy any such information, and authorizes Plaintiff to audit 4 | Defendants’ systems and records for compliance, at the cost of Defendants.* The 5 || Court deems these terms reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement of copyright, 6 | prevent actual or threatened misappropriation and provide an equitable remedy of 7 || Defendant Lin’s breaches of contract. 8 | IV. CONCLUSION 9 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS in part Plaintiff's Motion for 10 | Permanent Injunction. The Court shall issue a Permanent Injunction in a separate 11 | order. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 _ 15 | Dated: July 29, 2025 4 La ——_~ HON. WESLEY L. HSU 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 oe, 3 For the purposes of this order and forthcoming injunction the term “Moement Trade 24 | Secret Information” means any confidential information copied or derived from, in whole or in part from the source code titled MoeGo v.1, which the jury found were 25 | used or acquired through improper means. For purposes of this order and forthcoming 26 | iunction, “Moement Confidential Information” means the Moement Customer Database found in the Zhang Githhub account. 27 * Because the Court enters Default Judgment against defaulted Defendant Jie Zhang, 28 | the Permanent Injunction applies in equal force to Defendant Jie Zhang.