Zayo Group, LLC v. CVIN, LLC

Background

Zayo sued CVIN, LLC, doing business as Vast Networks, over a Dark Fiber Indefeasible Right of Use Agreement and two related service orders. The agreements concerned Zayo’s use of leased “dark fiber,” meaning excess fiber-optic capacity, on routes in California. Zayo used the fiber to provide Internet access, telecommunications, and other services to its customers.

On March 13, 2025, CVIN notified Zayo that it planned to replace fiber-optic cable along the leased routes. CVIN stated that the project could cause data outages lasting several days to several weeks or more over three to six months. Zayo later learned that CVIN planned to begin the project on April 23, 2025. Zayo requested a 60-day delay so it could move its customers to a replacement network, but CVIN did not agree. Zayo then filed suit and sought an emergency temporary restraining order.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the standards for emergency injunctive relief. It considered whether Zayo was likely to succeed on its breach-of-contract claim, likely to suffer harm that money could not adequately repair, whether the balance of hardships favored Zayo, and whether an injunction would serve the public interest. The court also noted that relief could issue if there were serious questions about the merits and the other factors favored relief.

The court found that Zayo had presented evidence of the agreements and its performance under them. It found that Zayo had shown a likelihood of establishing that cutting the fiber would breach the agreements, pointing to provisions giving Zayo an exclusive and indefeasible right to use the covered fiber, requiring Zayo’s preapproval of certain route changes, requiring 60 days’ notice of certain relocations, and requiring a separate agreement for qualifying construction services.

The court also credited Zayo’s position that outages could harm Zayo’s reputation and cause its customers economic losses. It found that the balance of hardships favored temporarily preventing the project because the order would preserve the existing situation for a few days, while allowing the project to proceed immediately could result in significant outages and could put Zayo in breach of its own customer contracts. The court concluded that the public interest also favored temporary relief because the outages could disrupt private and public services, potentially including 911 telephone calls.

Order

The court granted Zayo’s motion for a temporary restraining order. The order enjoins CVIN from replacing its fiber-optic networks on the specified California routes, including routes ranging from Soledad to Priest Valley and from Wheeler Ridge to Castaic.

The order also requires CVIN to appear before Judge Beth Labson Freeman at 9:00 a.m. on April 24, 2025, for a show-cause hearing. CVIN must explain why a preliminary injunction preventing CVIN, its employees, agents, or others acting on its behalf from replacing the specified networks for 75 days should not issue. The order set April 23, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. as the deadline for CVIN’s opposition papers and required Zayo to serve the order and related papers on CVIN by 6:00 p.m. on April 22, 2025.

The provided opinion text begins a discussion of security under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), but it does not include the discussion’s conclusion. The text clearly states the temporary restraining order’s disposition and the show-cause hearing, but it does not state a final ruling on any preliminary injunction.