Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Complete Fire Protection v. Kolman

United States District Court, D. Colorado

May 8, 2019

COMPLETE FIRE PROTECTION, Plaintiff,
v.
RAYMOND KOLMAN, Defendant.

          ORDER GRANTING PERMANENT INJUNCTION

          William J. Martinez, United States District Judge

         Currently before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion for Permanent Injunction (“Joint Motion) and Supplement to the Joint Motion (“Supplement”). (ECF Nos. 25 & 27.) In the Joint Motion, the parties ask this court to enter a proposed perm anent injunction. The Court ordered the Supplement and instructed the parties to address how the criteria for permanent injunctive relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 are satisfied.

         A party seeking a permanent injunction must prove four elements: (1) actual success on the merits; (2) irreparable harm absent an injunction; (3) that threatened injury outweighs the harm to the opposing party; and (4) that the injunction will not adversely affect the public interest. Sw. Stainless, LP v. Sappington, 582 F.3d 1176, 1191 (10th Cir. 2009).

         The Court has reviewed the Verified Complaint (ECF No. 1), the Joint Motion and Supplement, and the Declarations of Raymond Kolman and Mitch Huyck submitted as attachments to the Supplement (ECF Nos. 27-1 & 27-2). Based on the information provided therein, the Court finds that Plaintiff Complete Fire Protection (“CFP”) has satisfied its burden to demonstrate facts supporting each of the four requisite findings for entry of the requested permanent injunction pursuant to Rule 65(d).

         The stipulated facts establish the existence of an enforceable contract and a breach by Defendant Raymond Kolman (“Kolman”). The written settlement agreement between CFP and Kolman, which provides substantially all of the relief sought on CFP's breach of contract claim, demonstrates actual success on the merits. The stipulated facts also establish irreparable harm to CFP absent an injunction, and lack of an adequate remedy at law. Based on the parties stipulations of fact, the Court also concludes that the balance of hardship to CFP outweighs the harm to Kolman, and the injunction is in the public interest of enforcing contracts and protecting trade secrets.

         For the reasons set forth above, the Court ORDERS as follows:

         1. The Court GRANTS the Joint Motion for Permanent Injunction (ECF No. 25);

         2. The Court ADOPTS the parties' [Proposed] Permanent Injunction Order (ECF No. 27-3) as an order of the Court and ATTACHES that proposal to this Order as ECF No. 29-1;

         3. The Court ENJOINS Defendant to the extent set forth in the Permanent Injunction Order and as repeated here for the convenience of the parties:

a. Kolman shall IMMEDIATELY DELIVER to CFP all of CFP's confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret information in his possession or control together with any property Kolman obtained from CFP, including any and all computer files, documents, notes, records, reports, and other papers (and all copies thereof) relating to CFP's business and all associated property that Kolman may possess or have under his control, and shall retain no copies in any form.
b. Kolman is PROHIBITED from directly or indirectly using or making available, selling, disclosing or otherwise communicating to any third party any of CFP's confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret information.
c. Kolman is PROHIBITED, through March 29, 2022, from engaging in the following conduct anywhere in Colorado, whether directly or indirectly, on his own behalf or on behalf of, or in conjunction with, any person, partnership, corporation, or entity:
i. Soliciting in any manner any of CFP's Customers, as identified in the Parties' settlement agreement, including, without limitation, soliciting, inducing, or attempting to solicit or to induce any such Customer to cease doing business with CFP, reduce the amount of business it does with CFP, or in any way interfere with the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.