1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ACRISURE OF CALIFORNIA, LLC, Case No.: 20-CV-2224 JLS (AHG)

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTION

13 v. TO EXPEDITE HEARING; (2)

GRANTING IN PART

14 COMFORT INSURANCE SERVICES,

APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY

LLC; LAUREN COMFORTI; and RAUL 15 RESTRAINING ORDER; (3)

QUINONES

SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE;

16 Defendants. AND (4) SETTING PRELIMINARY 17 INJUNCTION HEARING

18 (ECF Nos. 1, 10)

19 20 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Acrisure of California, LLC’s Application for 21 Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (“Appl.,” ECF No. 1), and 22 Defendants Comfort Insurance Services, LLC, Lauren Comforti, and Raul Quinones’s 23 Opposition to Plaintiff’s Application (“Opp’n,” ECF No. 11). Plaintiff has also filed a 24 Motion to Expedite Hearing (“Mot. Expedite” ECF No. 10). Plaintiff seeks to restrain 25 Defendants from, among other things, “retaining possession of, directly or indirectly using, 26 disclosing or transmitting for any purpose, Acrisure’s confidential, proprietary, and/or 27 trade secret information or documents, files, or data belonging to Acrisure . . . .” Appl. at 28 26. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s Application. 1 BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiff filed the present Application on November 15, 2020. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff 3 filed proof of service of process on Defendants on November 23, 2020. ECF No. 12. 4 Defendants filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s Application on November 23, 2020. ECF No. 5 11. 6 Plaintiff avers that Defendants Comforti and Quinones were employees of Plaintiff 7 who began competing with Plaintiff prior to their resignation. Appl. ¶¶ 24, 29, 36. Plaintiff 8 alleges that Defendants Comforti and Quinones forwarded detailed confidential and trade 9 secret information related to Plaintiff’s clients and business to their personal email 10 addresses. Id. ¶¶ 37, 48, 52. The information Defendants emailed to themselves includes: 11 (1) a customer list with detailed information on more than 550 Acrisure clients, including 12 “Customer Name,” “Insurance Products Placed with each Insured,” “Name of Insurer 13 (Company),” and “Monthly Commission Amounts,” id. ¶¶ 37–38; (2) “lists of additional 14 Acrisure clients identified as cross-selling customer prospects for [Health Savings 15 Associates (HSA)] benefit proposals, renewal information for Acrisure clients, client- 16 specific benefit explanations, which include detailed pricing and client-specific benefit 17 explanations, pricing details, and plan structure explanations, and insurer information,” id. 18 ¶ 48; and (3) “client-specific benefit explanations, which include detailed pricing and 19 client-specific benefit explanations, pricing details, and plan structure explanations, and 20 insurer information,” id. ¶ 51. Plaintiff alleges Defendants Comforti and Quinones 21 “forwarded approximately 100 emails to their personal email accounts in their final months 22 of employment, which included approximately 100 additional documents as attachments.” 23 Id. at 52. Plaintiffs allege they have lost business as a result of Defendants actions, and as 24 recently as November 20, 2020, Plaintiff received notice of two additional clients 25 transferring business away from Plaintiff. Mot. Expedite ¶ 5. 26 Defendants Comforti and Quinones registered Comfort Insurance Services, LLC on 27 July 28, 2020, prior to tendering their resignations to Plaintiff on October 19, 2020. Appl. 28 ¶¶ 35–36. Defendants aver that “they took no action to establish a functioning business or 1 develop any revenue at that time.” Quinones Decl. ¶¶ 29–30, ECF No. 11-2; Comforti 2 Decl. ¶¶ 29–30, ECF No. 11-1. Defendants argue that Plaintiff did not provide the level of 3 customer service that their clients expected, and they registered the limited liability 4 company so “if conditions continued to deteriorate, and they were forced to leave 5 [Plaintiff’s] employment, [Defendants] would be able to hit the ground running.” Opp’n 6 at 7. Defendants further allege that although Plaintiff provided a secure remote desktop 7 application to access company systems while working remotely during the COVID-19 8 pandemic, “it was not practical to use it to work with spreadsheets, large documents or 9 graphic-intensive applications because it was subject to long delays and freeze-ups.” Id. 10 at 4. Therefore, “it was common practice . . . to use personal e-mail accounts to transfer 11 documents to work on from home . . . .” Id. at 5. 12 LEGAL STANDARD 13 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) governs the issuance of temporary restraining 14 orders (“TRO”). The standard for a temporary restraining order is identical to the standard 15 for a preliminary injunction. Frontline Med. Assocs., Inc. v. Coventry Healthcare Worker’s 16 Comp., Inc., 620 F. Supp. 2d 1109, 1110 (C.D. Cal. 2009). A plaintiff seeking preliminary 17 relief must establish “[1] that he is likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to 18 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities 19 tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. 20 Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The elements of this test are “balanced, so that 21 a stronger showing of one element may offset a weaker showing of another.” All. for Wild 22 Rockies v. Cottrell, 622 F.3d 1045, 1049–50 (9th Cir. 2010), rev’d on other grounds, 632 23 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011). Generally, a temporary restraining order is considered to be “an 24 extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is 25 entitled to such relief.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 22. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 ANALYSIS 2 Having reviewed the materials submitted and taking the allegations in the Complaint 3 as true, the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff has met its burden under Winter. The Court 4 finds Plaintiff has a reasonable chance of succeeding on the merits of its claims for 5 misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, breach of duty of loyalty, unfair 6 business practices, and unjust enrichment. Specifically, Plaintiff avers that Defendants 7 forwarded approximately 100 emails to their personal email accounts while still employed 8 with Plaintiff and after registering the Defendant limited liability company that Comforti 9 and Quinones presently operate to compete with Plaintiff. Appl. ¶¶ 36, 52. The emails 10 forwarded include “detailed, client-specific benefit explanations, which include detailed 11 pricing and client-specific benefit explanations, pricing details, and plan structure 12 explanations, and insurer information.” Ehrenfeld Decl. ¶¶ 28–29, ECF 1-3. Additionally, 13 Plaintiff treats the information emailed like trade secrets and takes measures to protect it 14 from unauthorized disclosure. See Appl. ¶ 21. These protective measures include 15 “password protecting its computers, network, and other databases;” “restricting access to 16 certain databases or information so that only those personnel who require the information 17 can access it;” and “requiring employees to sign employment agreements which contain 18 confidentiality clauses . . . .” Id. ¶ 21. Plaintiff has also convincingly argued that 19 Defendants’ alleged misappropriation will continue to risk damage to its client 20 relationships and Plaintiff’s goodwill and business reputation, which are irreparable 21 injuries. See id. ¶ 110; Mot. Expedite ¶ 5. Further, the balance of equities tip in favor of 22 granting a temporary restraining order, and a temporary restraining order is in the public 23 interest. 24 CONCLUSION AND ORDERS 25 Preliminary Injunction Hearing and Orders 26 1. Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Expedite 27 Hearing (ECF No. 10). 28 /// 1 2. The Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s Application for Temporary 2 Restraining Order as detailed below. Parties are HEREBY ORDERED to appear via 3 video for a preliminary injunction hearing on December 3, 2020 1:30 p.m., at which time 4 this TRO SHALL EXPIRE. At this time, the Court will hear oral argument on Plaintiff’s 5 requested preliminary injunction, which will not include an evidentiary hearing. 6 Defendants and/or any other affected persons may challenge the appropriateness of this 7 Order and move to dissolve the same at the scheduled hearing. 8 3. Plaintiff SHALL FILE a reply in support of its Application for Preliminary 9 Injunction on or before November 30, 2020 at noon. 10 4. Defendants are cautioned that failure to attend the preliminary injunction 11 hearing may result in confirmation of the relief provided herein, immediate issuance of the 12 requested preliminary injunction to take effect immediately upon expiration or dissolution 13 of the TRO, and may otherwise extend for the pendency of this litigation upon the same 14 terms and conditions that comprise this TRO. 15 Temporary Restraining Order1 16 5. Defendants Comfort Insurance Services LLC, Lauren Comforti, and Raul 17 Quinones, as well as their respective agents and all other persons and entities in active 18 concert, participation, or privity with them, are prohibited from directly or indirectly using, 19 disclosing, or transmitting for any purpose, Plaintiff’s confidential, proprietary, and/or 20 trade secret information or documents, files, or data belonging to Plaintiff, including, but 21 not limited to the specific Plaintiff documents emailed by Comforti and/or Quinones to 22 their personal email addresses, as described in the Declaration of Eric Ehrenfeld, filed with 23 Plaintiff’s Verified Application for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, 24 and Complaint. See generally Ehrenfeld Decl. 25 /// 26 27 28 1 Given the short briefing schedule for the preliminary injunction motion, the Court does not find it 1 6. Defendants are ordered to preserve and hold in abeyance any and all 2 ||documents, whether in paper or electronic form, that relate to the claims alleged in 3 || Plaintiff’s Complaint or the subject matter of this action. Defendants are prohibited from 4 ||destroying, discarding, or erasing any electronic storage devices where such documents 5 been stored. 6 7. Defendants are prohibited from requesting, advising, or encouraging any 7 ||customer or client of Plaintiff referenced in any materials transmitted to Comforti or 8 Quinones’ personal email accounts or that remain on any of Defendants’ devices or 9 || accounts to terminate or curtail its relationship with Plaintiff. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 ||Dated: November 24, 2020 tt 12 pee Janis L. Sammartino 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28