Allied Portables, LLC v. Robin Youmans, Garden St. Portables, LLC
| Decision Date | 06 November 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No: 2:15-cv-294-FtM-38CM |
| Parties | ALLIED PORTABLES, LLC and CONNIE ADAMSON, a Florida limited liability company Plaintiffs, v. ROBIN YOUMANS, GARDEN ST. PORTABLES, LLC, WILLIAM ''BILL" OSWALD, JR. , BILLOPRO, LLC, LORI A. LANGLOIS, DEBRA PALMER and PALMER ACCOUNTING & BOOKKEEPING SERVICE, INC., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff Allied Portables, LLC's (Allied) Second Verified Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. #37) filed on August 4, 2015. The Defendants, Robin Youmans, Garden Street Portables, LLC, filed their Response in Opposition (Doc. #41) on August 18, 2015. Defendants, William "Bill" Oswald , Jr., Billopro, LLC, Lori Langlois, Debra Palmer, and Palmer Accounting & Bookkeeping Service, Inc.'s (collectively with Youmans and Garden St. Portables Defendants) (Doc.#45) filed their Opposition to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction on August 25, 2015. On October 15, 2015, and October 21, 2015, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on the Motion. At the evidentiary hearing the Parties presented documents and live testimony in support of their positions. The Motion is fully briefed and ripe for the Court's review.
Before the Court is Allied's First Amended Complaint containing eight (8) counts as follows: Count I for an alleged violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and Count II, a violation of the Federal Stored Communications Act are the only federal law claims in the Complaint. Plaintiffs' state law claims include allegations of the following: Count III violation of the Florida Privacy of Communication Act; Count IV misappropriation of trade secrets; Count V, tortious interference with an advantageous business relationship; Count VI, a civil conspiracy to convert (conversion); Count VII, breach of contract; and Count VIII, breach of fiduciary duty.
The primary business of Allied Portables is the provision of portable restrooms, flushing toilets, hand washing stations, hand sanitization stations, climate controlled restroom trailers, climate controlled shower trailers, and specialized restroom trailers for agricultural use. Allied Portables was formed in 2009 by Robin Youmans (Youmans) and Allied Recycling, Inc. Chester Adamson signed on behalf of Allied Recycling. Youmans owns 49% of Allied Portables and was selected to be the managing member. Connie Adamson was substituted as a member replacing Allied Recycling, LLC in 2012.
As managing member, Youmans carried out Allied Portables day to day administrative operations with the assistance of the other Defendants in this action, William Oswald, Jr. (Oswald), Lori Langlois (Langlois), and Debra Palmer (Palmer). Asthe managing member, Youmans oversaw the daily operations of Allied Portables including sales, operations, vendor and customer relationships. Youmans via third party vendors set up and serviced Allied Portables' computer systems. Youmans had unfettered access to all of Allied Portables' confidential, business, and trade secret information.
Youmans accused Chester Adamson, the husband of Connie Adamson, who owns 51% of Allied Portables, of using her Allied Portables' password to gain access to Allied Portables' checking account and then using the funds for his own personal benefit. Youmans claims Chester Adamson submitted a bill to Allied Portables for $17,000.00 to pay for the Adamson's oldest son's fortieth (40) birthday party in Las Vegas, Nevada. Youmans changed the passwords to the accounts and created a new post office box to segregate Allied Portables' mail from Adamson's mail. Subsequently, Youmans offered to purchase Connie Adamson's 51% stake in Allied Portables. On August 18, 2014, Connie Adamson sent Youmans a text message agreeing to sell her 51% interest in Allied Portables to Youmans.
On August 29, 2014, Youmans was scheduled to have a meeting with Connie Adamson for what she believed to finalize the sale of Allied Portables. Instead of meeting Connie Adamson, Youmans was met by Allied Portables' attorneys, Gary Butler and Tom Coleman, who terminated Youmans from her position as manager of Allied Portables. On September 3, 2014, Allied sent a letter via Federal Express to Youmans informing her that she had been terminated as managing member of Allied Portables, LLC. Connie Adamson took over as managing member and has served as the sole managing membersince Youmans termination. Maria Adamson, Connie and Chester Adamson's daughter-in-law, replaced Youmans as the manager of business operations at Allied Portables.
In its First Amended Complaint, Allied alleges that Youmans took confidential trade secret information including customer lists, pricing information, event schedules for local communities, and Allied Portables' 10—Rental Rate Analysis Report which contains all the information necessary to run a portables business as well as other alleged confidential and trade secret information belonging to Allied. Allied avers that Youmans and Garden St. Portables never developed their own customer list but rather worked directly off Allied's customer list. In addition to the trade secret information and confidential materials, Plaintiffs allege Youmans kept her company issued i-Phone, i-Pad, and laptop computer. Youmans states she gave those items to her attorney, Karl Landsteiner, and that all of Allied Portables electronic equipment has now been returned.
Allied maintains that Youmans conspired with Palmer, Allied's bookkeeper, to divert and hold payments to reduce Allied's value to make the price of Allied Portables cheaper for Youmans' planned purchase. Further, Youmans changed the mailing address for Allied's receivables to allow her to intercept Allied's mail. Allied continues that Youmans directed Palmer to change Allied's payment address, electronic access credentials for Allied's accounting programs, and to prevent Chester Adamson access to Allied's systems. Youmans directed Palmer to take twenty (20) Allied Portable checks in case she needed them. Further, Youmans installed a computer in her home office using Allied's funds. Additionally, Youmans had a third-party vendor configure a firewall and take other unauthorized actions including changing the access credentials for the Total Activity Control software to impede Allied's operations in case she was terminated.
The decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction is within the discretion of the district court. Advance Produce, Inc. v. Isadore A. Rapasadi & Sons, Inc., No. 8:13-CV-00242-T-30, 2013 WL 593845, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 14, 2013). Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the entry of a preliminary injunction. The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to maintain the status quo until the court can enter a final decision on the merits of the case. Jordan v. Def. Fin. & Accounting Servs., No. 8:15-CV-391-T-36TBM, 2015 WL 6166578, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 20, 2015) (citing Bloedorn v. Grube, 631 F.3d 1218, 1229 (11th Cir.2011)). A party seeking entry of a preliminary injunction must establish: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted; (3) the threatened injury to the moving party outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party; and (4) if issued, the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest. Forsyth Cnty. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 633 F.3d 1032, 1039 (11th Cir.2011) (quotations omitted).
"A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to be granted unless the movant clearly establishes the burden of persuasion as to the four requisites." Id. (quoting ACLU of Fla., Inc. v. Miami-Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd., 557 F.3d 1177, 1198 (11th Cir.2009)). The entry of a preliminary injunction is "the exception rather than the rule, and plaintiff must clearly carry the burden of persuasion." Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1179 (11th Cir.2000) (quoting Texas v. Seatrain Int'l, S.A., 518 F.2d 175, 179 (5th Cir.1975)); Four Seasons Hotels & Resorts, B.V. v. Consorcio Barr, S.A., 320 F.3d 1205, 1210 (11th Cir.2003) (citations omitted) ( since a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, a district court should not issue a preliminary injunctionunless the movant clearly establishes the burden of persuasion as to each of the four prerequisites). A plaintiff may support its motion for a preliminary injunction by setting forth allegations of specific facts in affidavits. M.D. Fla. R. 4.06(b)(2), 4.06(b)(3). In considering a motion for preliminary injunctive relief, a district court may rely on affidavits and hearsay materials that would not be admissible as evidence for entry of a permanent injunction. Jordan, 2015 WL 6166578, at *5 (citing Levi Strauss & Co. v. Sunrise Int'l Trading Inc., 51 F.3d 982, 985 (11th Cir.1995)).
Allied argues that it is entitled to injunctive relief for Counts I, II, III, IV, and VIII. Count I alleges Defendants violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) 18, U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2(C), (a)(4), (a)(5)(A)-(C), Count II, Violation of the Federal Stored Communications Act (SCA); Count III, Misappropriations of Trade Secrets; Count IV, Tortious Interference with Advantageous Business Relationship; and Count VIII, Breach of Fiduciary Duty by Youmans. The Court will address the relief requested in each count in turn.
Allied argues Defendants committed a number of prohibited activities which violate the CFAA. Specifically, Allied avers Defendants, using unauthorized means of access, obtained and transmitted voluminous amounts of Allied's confidential information. Allied argues that all of the information obtained through unauthorized means by Defendants was acquired post termination.
The CFAA was designed to target...
To continue reading
Request your trial