Jeffrey v. Bailey

Full title: RYAN M. JEFFREY, DDS, Plaintiff, v. RONALD BAILEY, DMD, ET AL., Defendants.

Court: Superior Court of Maine

Date published: Feb 1, 2021

No. BCD-CIV-2020-43 (Me. Super. Feb. 1, 2021)

Opinion

BCD-CIV-2020-43

02-01-2021

RYAN M. JEFFREY, DDS, Plaintiff, v. RONALD BAILEY, DMD, ET AL., Defendants.

Attorney Name: Seth Brewster, Esq. Eaton Peabody Eric Uhl, Esq. Richardson, Whitman, Large & Badger Ronald W. Bailey, DMD and Stillwater Dental Associates, PA

Michael A. Duddy Judge, Business and Consumer Docket

Attorney Name: Seth Brewster, Esq. Eaton Peabody

Eric Uhl, Esq. Richardson, Whitman, Large & Badger

Ronald W. Bailey, DMD and Stillwater Dental Associates, PA

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS

Michael A. Duddy Judge, Business and Consumer Docket

The parties to this action dispute the interpretation, application, and enforcement of a Confidentiality and Non-competition Agreement dated June 10, 2013. The parties have filed competing Motions for Temporary Restraining Orders. Oral argument on the Motions was conducted on February 1, 2021. For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies both Motions.

In order to prevail on a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, the moving party must show, inter alia, irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted. Ingraham v. University of Maine at Orono, 441 A.2d 691, 693 (Me. 1982). Absent a showing of irreparable injury, the motion mustbe denied. Id. In this case, atthis stage of the proceeding, neither moving party has made the necessary showing of irreparable harm. Accordingly, both Motions are denied.

The Clerk will reach out to the parties to see if they wish to proceed with an evidentiary hearing on the Motions for Preliminary Injunction. Counsel are reminded that under the applicable pandemic guidance, the trial courts are not currently permitted to schedule civil trials (even if conducted remotely) unless there are urgent and compelling reasons. Accordingly, if any party wishes to have an evidentiary hearing (i.e. trial) on the Motions for Preliminary Injunction, the party will need to file a Motion arguing that there are urgent and compelling reasons to schedule the hearing.

Pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a), the Clerk is instructed to incorporate this Order by reference on the docket for this case.

So Ordered.