Opinion
Civil No. 01-1108-FR
August 29, 2001
Peter E. Heuser, Owen W. Dukelow, Kolisch, Hartwell, Dickinson, McCormack Heuser, P.C., Portland, Oregon, Eric A. Bartsch, Lindquist Vennum, P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, Minnesota, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
Michael M. Ratoza, Laura Caldera Taylor, Ratoza Long, P.C., Portland, Oregon, Bryan P. Coluccio, Short Cressman Burgess, P.L.L.C., Seattle, Washington, Attorneys for Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
The matter before the court is the plaintiff's application for a temporary restraining order (#30).
On July 30, 2001, the plaintiff, Sunrich Food Group, Inc. (Sunrich), filed a motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendant, Pacific Foods of Oregon, Inc. (Pacific Foods), from 1) interfering with the Co-Brand Agreement between Sunrich and Trader Joe's dated June 5, 1996; 2) from converting and misappropriating Sunrich's trade secrets and confidential information; and 3) competing in any way with Sunrich for TRADER JOE'S-branded soy and rice beverage business. The court has scheduled this motion for a preliminary injunction to be heard before this court on September 10, 2001 at 1:30 p.m.
On August 21, 2001, Sunrich applied to this court pursuant to Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for an order temporarily restraining and enjoining Pacific Foods from 1) manufacturing, selling or distributing soy and rice beverage products to Trader Joe's which compete with Sunrich's SOY-UM and RICE-UM soy and rice-based beverage products; and 2) manufacturing and selling Sunrich's SOY-UM and RICE-UM soy and rice based-beverage products without Sunrich's express permission.
On August 27, 2001, Pacific Foods filed an opposition to Sunrich's motion for a temporary restraining order.
RULING OF THE COURT
The court has reviewed the application for a temporary restraining order filed by Sunrich and the opposition to the application for a temporary restraining order by Pacific Foods. The court finds that a temporary restraining order pending the hearing on Sunrich's motion for a preliminary injunction is not supported by law or fact.
The plaintiff's application for a temporary restraining order (#30) is DENIED. The plaintiff's request for oral argument is DENIED. The hearing on the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction will go forward as currently scheduled.
IT IS SO ORDERED.