Sobol v. Capital Management Consultants, Inc.
| Decision Date | 08 October 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 16876,16876 |
| Citation | 102 Nev. 444,726 P.2d 335 |
| Parties | , 63 A.L.R.4th 1193 Saul O. SOBOL, dba Physicians Medical Center, Appellant, v. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS, INC., a Nevada corporation; Fred E. De Florentis, individually and as an officer of said corporation; Audry Linde De Florentis, individually and as an officer of said corporation, Respondents. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Lionel, Sawyer & Collins, and Anthony Cabot, Las Vegas, for appellant.
Charles M. Damus, Las Vegas, for respondents.
FACTS
Appellant Saul Sobol (Sobol) is a physician licensed to practice medicine in Nevada. In 1983, Sobol created a multi-specialty medical clinic named "Physicians Medical Center." Since the clinic's inception, Sobol has spent approximately $30,000 per month advertising the clinic and its services. Sobol's clinic has been successful; it has gone from one physician and no patients in September 1983 to twenty physicians and approximately 30,000 patients in 1985.
Respondent Capital Management Consultants, Inc. (CMC) owns General Practice Associates (GPA), a medical clinic in direct competition with Physicians Medical Center. In December 1984, CMC learned that Sobol had never filed a certificate of business under the fictitious name "Physicians Medical Center." 1 Shortly thereafter, in March 1985, CMC filed a fictitious name certificate claiming to be doing business under the name "Physician's Medical Center." But for the addition of an apostrophe, the new name of CMC's medical clinic is identical to that used by Sobol for his clinic. 2
In August 1985, CMC sent a letter to Sobol's landlord stating that CMC possessed the sole legal right to do business as "Physicians Medical Center," and requesting that the landlord remove any signs belonging to Sobol that used that name. CMC also sent letters to Sobol's advertisers asserting its right to use the name "Physicians Medical Center," and requesting that the advertisers cease using the name in conjunction with Sobol's clinic. CMC also advertised using the name "Physicians Medical Center." Sobol filed a complaint in district court alleging that CMC had infringed upon Sobol's trade name, engaged in deceptive trade practices, and interfered with Sobol's contractual relations and prospective business advantage. The complaint also sought a preliminary and permanent injunction to restrain CMC from doing business as "Physicians Medical Center" and from communicating with any of Sobol's suppliers.
The district court granted Sobol's motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin CMC from contacting Sobol's suppliers or interfering with Sobol's business. However, the district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction to prevent CMC's use of the name "Physicians Medical Center." Sobol appealed and this court entered an order enjoining CMC from using the name "Physicians Medical Center" pending the outcome of this appeal.
Sobol contends that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to grant in full his request for a preliminary injunction. A preliminary injunction is available upon a showing that the party seeking it enjoys a reasonable probability of success on the merits and that the defendant's conduct, if allowed to continue, will result in irreparable harm for which compensatory damages is an inadequate remedy. Number One Rent-A-Car v. Ramada Inns, 94 Nev. 779, 780, 587 P.2d 1329, 1330 (1978).
Without expressing an opinion on the merits of Sobol's complaint below, we conclude that Sobol has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits. Furthermore, acts committed without just cause which unreasonably interfere with a business or destroy its credit or profits, may do an irreparable injury and thus authorize issuance of an injunction. Guion v. Terra Marketing of Nev., Inc., 90 Nev. 237, 240, 523 P.2d 847, 848 (1974). CMC's alleged usurpation of the name "Physicians Medical Center" clearly interferes with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Bar of Nevada v. Claiborne
... ... tried, or punished for any offense, not capital, unless the indictment is found or the information is ... I believe the management of the Gazette-Journal must understand the reason that ... will accept same as admissible); Old Aztec Mine, Inc ... ...
-
FRITZ HANSEN A/S v. Dist. Ct.
...Petroleum Job. Ass'n v. Federal Power Com'n, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 106, 259 F.2d 921, 925 (D.C.Cir.1958)); cf. Sobol v. Capital Management, 102 Nev. 444, 446, 726 P.2d 335, 337 (1986) (concluding, in the context of an injunction, that "acts committed without just cause which unreasonably interfe......
-
Sloan v. State Bar of Nevada
... ... sale for a tractor his company, Brinkerhoff Seed Farms, Inc., wished to purchase from William Larson. Brinkerhoff ... ...
-
Chateau Vegas Wine, Inc. v. Southern Wine & Spirits of America, Inc.
...permanent injunction to protect a business's goodwill from the violation of a noncompete clause); see also Sobol v. Capital Management, 102 Nev. 444, 446, 726 P.2d 335, 337 (1986) (competitor's usurpation of medical center's trade name created public confusion, infringed on the goodwill of ......
-
The joy of editing: better appellate briefs.
...2d D.C.A. 1988). (3) See, e.g., Beam v. IPCO Corporation, 838 F.2d 242 (7th Cir. 1988); Sobol v. Capital Management Consultants, Inc., 726 P.2d 335 (Nev. 1986). A concurring opinion does not constitute the court's decision unless a majority of the Florida Supreme Court concur in the opinion......