On December 05, 2018 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Lazenby, Ryan,
Temaca Irrigation Llc,
and
Gomez, Guadalupe,
Gomez, James,
Temaca Lawn Sprinklers,
Temaca Lawn Sprinkler'S, Inc.,
for Employment
in the District Court of Hennepin County.
Preview
27-CV-18-19659
STATE 0F MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY 0F HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CASE TYPE: CONTRACT
Ryan Lazenby, and Court File No.
Temaca Irrigation LLC, (The Hon. )
Plaintiff,
vs. PROPOSED TEMPORARY
INJUNCTION
Guadalupe Gomez, James Gomez
Temaca Lawn Sprinkler's, Inc. d.b.a.
Temaca Lawn Sprinklers,
Defendants.
The ab0ve-entitled proceeding came on for review and approval before a Judge
0f the Fourth Judicial District 0n ,
2018 for a motion for a preliminary
injunction. Kirk Tisher appeared on behalf 0f Plaintiffs Ryan Lazenby, and Temaca Irrigation
LLC. Based upon Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint as well as other information provided to the
Court, the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS 0F FACT:
I. Plaintiff Ryan Lazenby isa resident of Hennepin County Minnesota.
Il. Defendant 'l‘emaca Lawn Sprinkler‘s, Inc. d.b.a. Ternaca Lawn Sprinklers (“Temaca
Lawn Sprinklers”) is a Minnesota-based corporation organized under the laws 0f the
Slate 0f Minnesota.
27-CV-18-19659
IV. Defendant Guadalupe Gomez is a natural person residing in the state of Minnesota,
whose last known address is 3790 Highland Rd St. Bonifacius, MN 55375.
This action was brought by Plaintiffs t0, inter alia, seek relief from an inappropriate: (1)
breach of contract, (2) tortious interference with contract, and (3) interference with
business relations, (4) conversion, and (5) t0 enjoin certain conduct by Defendants
Guadalupe Gomez and Temaca Lawn Sprinklers.
V1. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this court pursuant to Minn. Stat. §542.09, as
Defendant Guadalupe Gomez resides in Hennepin County, and the events giving rise to
this matter took place in Hennepin County.
V11. On April 24, 2017 Plaintiff Ryan Lazenby purchased Temaca Lawn Sprinklers, including
its customer accounts, from Defendant Guadalupe Gomez.
Vlll. The parties” Business Purchase Agreement (the “Agreement”) contained a valid and
enforceable restrictive covenant, which prevented Defendant Guadalupe Gomez from
competing in the lawn irrigation service business in Minnesota.
IX. Plaintiff Temaca Irrigation, LLC (“Temaca Irrigation”) is the successor corporation to
Temaca Lawn Sprinklers, and isowned and operated by Plaintiff Ryan Lazenby.
Defendant Guadalupe Gomez continues t0 service [awn irrigation systems in the state of
Minnesota in direct competition with Plaintiffs.
27-CV-18-19659
X]. Defendant Guadalupe Gomez has approached Temaca lrrigation’s current customers and
attempted t0 persuade them t0 end their business with Temaca Irrigation and to do
business with him instead.
XII. Defendant Guadalupe Gomez has maintained Temaca Lawn Sprinkler’s registration with
the Secretary of State, and continues to listhimself and the chief executive officer of that
corporation.
XIII. Defendant Guadalupe Gomez has also received payments intended for Temaca Irrigation
and deposited those payments in Temaca Lawn Sprinkler’s account.
CONCLUSIONS 0F LAW
I.
If the temporary injunction were denied, Defendant Guadalupe Gomez would continue to (l)
breach his restrictive covenant with Plaintiff Lazenby, (2) tortuously interfere with Plaintiff
Temaca lrrigation’s contracts and business relations, and (3) cause confusion amongst customers
as t0 the identities ofTemaca Irrigation and Temaca Lawn Sprinklers.
II.
Plaintiff Lazenby has a valid and enforceable restrictive covenant with Defendant Guadalupe
Gomez that specifically prohibits Defendant Guadalupe Gomez from competing with Plaintiffs
in the lawn irrigation business.
II].
If the preliminary injunction were denied, Defendant Guadalupe Gomez will be wrongfully
enriched.
27-CV-18-19659
IV
The harm t0 be suffered by the Plaintiffs if the preliminary injunction was denied is greater than
that which would be inflicted 0n Defendants if the inj unction issues pending trial.
V.
[t islikely Plaintiffs will prevail on the merits.
VI.
Public policy requires that the preliminary injunction order be granted, as the wrongful conduct
of Defendants will be encouraged if such relief was not granted.
VII.
There are few administrative burdens in the judicial supervision of the preliminary injunction, as
the order requires littlesupervision. The administrative process involved in judicial supervision
and enforcement 0f the temporary decree are not overly burdensome.
ORDER
1. Pending further order from this Court, Defendant Guadalupe Gomez and his agents,
employees, and affiliates are enjoined from servicing lawn irrigation systems, soliciting lawn
inigation customers, or otherwise competing in the Minnesota lawn irrigation business with
Plaintiff Tcmaca Irrigation.
2. Pending further order from this Court, Defendant Guadalupe Gomez is enjoined from
operating Temaca Lawn Sprinklers, Inc. 0r Temaca Lawn Sprinklers.
3. Pending further order from this Court, any monetary compensation or receivables
received or retained by Defendant Guadalupe Gomez as a result of servicing lawn irrigation
systems shall be identified and escrowed in counsel’s trust account.
4. Pending further order from this Court, all accounts held by Temaca Lawn Sprinkler’s Inc.
d.b.a Temaca Lawn Sprinklers are hereby frozen.
4
27-CV-18-19659
LET JUDGEMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
APPROVED FOR ENTRY
Dated:
Judge 0f District Court
Document Filed Date
December 05, 2018
Case Filing Date
December 05, 2018
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
27-CV-18-19659 STATE 0F MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY 0F HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CASE TYPE: CONTRACT Ryan Lazenby, and Court File No. Temaca Irrigation LLC, (The Hon. ) Plaintiff, vs. PROPOSED TEMPORARY INJUNCTION Guadalupe Gomez, James Gomez Temaca Lawn Sprinkler's, Inc. d.b.a. Temaca Lawn Sprinklers, Defendants. The ab0ve-entitled proceeding came on for review and approval before a Judge 0f the Fourth Judicial District 0n , 2018 for a motion for a preliminary injunction. Kirk Tisher appeared on behalf 0f Plaintiffs Ryan Lazenby, and Temaca Irrigation LLC. Based upon Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint as well as other information provided to the Court, the undersigned makes the following: FINDINGS 0F FACT: I. Plaintiff Ryan Lazenby isa resident of Hennepin County Minnesota. Il. Defendant 'l‘emaca Lawn Sprinkler‘s, Inc. d.b.a. Ternaca Lawn Sprinklers (“Temaca Lawn Sprinklers”) is a Minnesota-based corporation organized under the laws 0f the Slate 0f Minnesota. 27-CV-18-19659 IV. Defendant Guadalupe Gomez is a natural person residing in the state of Minnesota, whose last known address is 3790 Highland Rd St. Bonifacius, MN 55375. This action was brought by Plaintiffs t0, inter alia, seek relief from an inappropriate: (1) breach of contract, (2) tortious interference with contract, and (3) interference with business relations, (4) conversion, and (5) t0 enjoin certain conduct by Defendants Guadalupe Gomez and Temaca Lawn Sprinklers. V1. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this court pursuant to Minn. Stat. §542.09, as Defendant Guadalupe Gomez resides in Hennepin County, and the events giving rise to this matter took place in Hennepin County. V11. On April 24, 2017 Plaintiff Ryan Lazenby purchased Temaca Lawn Sprinklers, including its customer accounts, from Defendant Guadalupe Gomez. Vlll. The parties” Business Purchase Agreement (the “Agreement”) contained a valid and enforceable restrictive covenant, which prevented Defendant Guadalupe Gomez from competing in the lawn irrigation service business in Minnesota. IX. Plaintiff Temaca Irrigation, LLC (“Temaca Irrigation”) is the successor corporation to Temaca Lawn Sprinklers, and isowned and operated by Plaintiff Ryan Lazenby. Defendant Guadalupe Gomez continues t0 service [awn irrigation systems in the state of Minnesota in direct competition with Plaintiffs. 27-CV-18-19659 X]. Defendant Guadalupe Gomez has approached Temaca lrrigation’s current customers and attempted t0 persuade them t0 end their business with Temaca Irrigation and to do business with him instead. XII. Defendant Guadalupe Gomez has maintained Temaca Lawn Sprinkler’s registration with the Secretary of State, and continues to listhimself and the chief executive officer of that corporation. XIII. Defendant Guadalupe Gomez has also received payments intended for Temaca Irrigation and deposited those payments in Temaca Lawn Sprinkler’s account. CONCLUSIONS 0F LAW I. If the temporary injunction were denied, Defendant Guadalupe Gomez would continue to (l) breach his restrictive covenant with Plaintiff Lazenby, (2) tortuously interfere with Plaintiff Temaca lrrigation’s contracts and business relations, and (3) cause confusion amongst customers as t0 the identities ofTemaca Irrigation and Temaca Lawn Sprinklers. II. Plaintiff Lazenby has a valid and enforceable restrictive covenant with Defendant Guadalupe Gomez that specifically prohibits Defendant Guadalupe Gomez from competing with Plaintiffs in the lawn irrigation business. II]. If the preliminary injunction were denied, Defendant Guadalupe Gomez will be wrongfully enriched. 27-CV-18-19659 IV The harm t0 be suffered by the Plaintiffs if the preliminary injunction was denied is greater than that which would be inflicted 0n Defendants if the inj unction issues pending trial. V. [t islikely Plaintiffs will prevail on the merits. VI. Public policy requires that the preliminary injunction order be granted, as the wrongful conduct of Defendants will be encouraged if such relief was not granted. VII. There are few administrative burdens in the judicial supervision of the preliminary injunction, as the order requires littlesupervision. The administrative process involved in judicial supervision and enforcement 0f the temporary decree are not overly burdensome. ORDER 1. Pending further order from this Court, Defendant Guadalupe Gomez and his agents, employees, and affiliates are enjoined from servicing lawn irrigation systems, soliciting lawn inigation customers, or otherwise competing in the Minnesota lawn irrigation business with Plaintiff Tcmaca Irrigation. 2. Pending further order from this Court, Defendant Guadalupe Gomez is enjoined from operating Temaca Lawn Sprinklers, Inc. 0r Temaca Lawn Sprinklers. 3. Pending further order from this Court, any monetary compensation or receivables received or retained by Defendant Guadalupe Gomez as a result of servicing lawn irrigation systems shall be identified and escrowed in counsel’s trust account. 4. Pending further order from this Court, all accounts held by Temaca Lawn Sprinkler’s Inc. d.b.a Temaca Lawn Sprinklers are hereby frozen. 4 27-CV-18-19659 LET JUDGEMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. APPROVED FOR ENTRY Dated: Judge 0f District Court