Order granting a preliminary injunction enjoining a foreclosure based on plaintiffs showing that “’there is a serious controversy’” as to default or the enforceability of the loan documents at issue."
Brief in Support of Motion for Preliminary InjunctionContinue Reading Cabrera v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., September 18, 2009 (Diaz)(unpublished)
Today, in TAI Sports, Inc. v. Hall, the Business Court denied Plaintiff’s’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction freezing Defendants’ assets and appointing a receiver to manage the business of the Defendants.
The claim made by Plaintiff was that one of the Defendants had used his position as an officer of one of the Plaintiff’s companies to misappropriate over $1 million in cash and inventory. The Defendants had disputed the allegations.
Judge Diaz observed that the bulk of the damages sought by Plaintiff were lost profits, and that Plaintiff had
Continue Reading Business Court Denies Motion For Asset Freeze And Appointment Of A Receiver
Today, the Business Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction in a state law trademark dispute between competing jewelry stores. The Order in Windsor Jewelers, Inc. v. Windsor Fine Jewelers, LLC, 2009 NCBC 2 (N.C. Super. Ct. Feb. 16, 2009) dissolved a Temporary Restraining Order which had previously been entered in the case. I wrote about the entry of the TRO back in November 2008.
Defendant bought two jewelry stores in Charlotte, planning to rename them "Windsor Fine Jewelers." Plaintiff, which operates a single jewelry store in Winston-Salem
The Defendant’s exercise of his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination was the basis for the North Carolina Business Court’s entry of a Preliminary Injunction on October 29th in Amacell LLC v. Bostic.
Plaintiff asserted that its former employee, a senior research scientist, had misappropriated trade secrets and violated a confidentiality agreement. The Defendant didn’t deny the misconduct alleged, but instead invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
Judge Tennille drew an adverse inference as a result of the Defendant’s refusal to testify and entered the Preliminary Injunction, holding:
Mitchell, Brewer, Richardson, Adams, Burge & Boughman, PLLC v. Brewer, April 9, 2008 (Jolly)(unpublished)
This is the second opinion from the Court in this case involving the dissolution of a law firm. The principal issue is whether the plaintiffs, who left the law firm, are entitled to the proceeds of contingent fee cases resolved after their departure from the firm. The earlier decision is summarized here.
Today, the Court denied the entry of a preliminary injunction preventing the defendants from distributing to themselves the proceeds from those cases. Here
Continue Reading Preliminary Injunction Denied In Law Firm Dissolution