United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Atlanta Fiberglass
USA, LLC's (“AFG”) Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order (the “Motion”) .
a Georgia limited liability company owned solely by Mr.
Madanjit Oberoi. Defendant Sinoma Science & Technology
Co. Ltd. (“Sinoma”) is a company organized under
the laws of the People's Republic of China. The
individual defendants Wang Yi, Liu Tiejun, Ding Guanbao, and
Xi Jianya, (collectively, the “Individual
Defendants”) are officers of Sinoma and citizens of the
People's Republic of China.
a worldwide distribution and manufacturing company dealing in
high quality fiberglass fabrics. Sinoma is a producer of
filter fabrics in China. On September 10, 2012, Sinoma and
AFG entered into a Sales and Marketing Agreement (the
“Agreement”) by which the parties agreed to
engage in a “joint venture” to provide Sinoma
access to North American markets. ([8.1]). From 2012 through
June 2016, the parties performed under the Agreement.
2016, near the expiration of the Agreement, the parties
amended the Agreement and extended the relationship for
another four years (the “Amendment”). ([8.2]).
Among other changes, the Amendment altered the way in which
AFG was paid. For the first time, customers were required to
deliver payment directly to Sinoma, instead of the AFG, and
Sinoma was then required to pay AFG an eight percent
alleges that, immediately after entering into the Amendment,
Sinoma began taking steps to circumvent its obligations under
the Agreement and Amendment, including failing to pay
commissions, contacting AFG's customers, exchanging
purchase orders and invoices without notification to AFG, and
improperly using AFG's confidential information.
April 30, 2018, AFG filed its Complaint asserting claims for
breach of contract, defamation, fraud, breach of fiduciary
duty, and injunctive relief. ().
3, 2018, AFG filed its Motion seeking an order requiring
unidentified third-party customers of Sinoma (“Sinoma
Customers”) to refrain from paying or transferring
funds to Sinoma for a period of ten days and for leave to
immediately serve discovery on Defendants while they are
visiting the United States, including an order that
Defendants present a corporate representative for a
deposition on May 9 or 10. (). AFG submitted scant factual
information by affidavit or verified complaint to support the
allegations offered in the Complaint and Motion.
4, 2018, the Court held a telephonic conference during which
the Court determined the Motion did not meet the requirements
of Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
declined to grant, ex parte, AFG's motion for a temporary
restraining order. AFG represented in the Motion, and
confirmed during the telephone conference, that the
Defendants would be in Atlanta, Georgia, arriving on or about
May 5, 2018. AFG further represented that it would serve the
Defendants with the Complaint, Motion, supporting filings,
and the Court's May 4, 2018, Order on Sunday, May 6,
2018. The Court scheduled a hearing on the Motion for Monday,
May 7, 2018. ().
6, 2018, Defendants were served with copies of the pleadings
and the Court's May 4, 2018, Order directing them to be
present or represented by counsel at the hearing. (). Also
on May 6, 2018, AFG filed its Amended Complaint.
7, 2018, the Court heard oral argument on the Motion.
Defendants were not present or represented by counsel and
they did not contact the Court to represent that they desired
to attend but were unable.
eligible for a temporary restraining order or preliminary
injunctive relief under Rule 65, a movant must establish each
of the following elements: (1) a substantial likelihood of
success on the merits; (2) that irreparable injury will be
suffered if the relief is not granted; (3) that the
threatened injury outweighs the harm the relief would inflict
on the non-movant; and (4) that entry of the relief would
serve the public interest. See Schiavo ex rel. Schindler