Carrandi v. NetRoadshow, Inc.
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:24-cv-01092
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Carrandi v. NetRoadshow, Judge Gilliam ordered a response to Carrandi’s request for emergency relief rather than ruling on it.
Lisa Carrandi and NetRoadshow, Inc.; the order also concerns Carrandi’s consulting relationship with Finsight Group, Inc.
What happened
In Carrandi v. NetRoadshow, Lisa Carrandi asked the court to stop NetRoadshow, her former employer, from enforcing allegedly unlawful post-employment restrictions and interfering with her consulting relationship with Finsight Group, Inc.
The court said emergency relief requires showing likely success, likely serious harm without relief, favorable fairness considerations, and a public benefit. It did not decide whether Carrandi met that standard; instead, it gave NetRoadshow an opportunity to respond.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ordered Carrandi to serve the motion and the order by noon Pacific time on February 28, 2024. NetRoadshow’s written opposition was due by 3:00 p.m. Pacific time on March 5, 2024, after which the matter would be considered submitted unless the court ordered otherwise.
The detailed version
- Carrandi v. NetRoadshow, Inc. · No. 4:24-cv-01092
- Haywood Gilliam
- Feb. 27, 2024
Background
Lisa Carrandi moved for a temporary restraining order, an emergency court order, against NetRoadshow, Inc., which the opinion identifies as her former employer. She asked the court to prevent NetRoadshow from enforcing allegedly unlawful post-employment restrictive covenants in the parties’ Employment Agreement and from interfering with her current consulting relationship with Finsight Group, Inc. She also requested an order requiring NetRoadshow to explain why a preliminary injunction should not issue while the case continues toward trial.
Legal standard
The court described a temporary restraining order as an extraordinary remedy. It stated that the moving party must clearly establish four things: a likelihood of success on the merits, a likelihood of irreparable harm without preliminary relief, a balance of equities favoring relief, and that an injunction would serve the public interest.
Action taken
After reviewing Carrandi’s motion and supporting documents, the court found it appropriate to give NetRoadshow an opportunity to respond. The court did not state that it was granting or denying the temporary restraining order.
The court directed Carrandi to serve the documents filed as Docket Number 4—the motion and supporting documents—and Docket Number 10—the order—on NetRoadshow through its counsel by 12:00 p.m. Pacific time on Wednesday, February 28, 2024. The court allowed service by email. NetRoadshow was directed to file any written opposition by 3:00 p.m. Pacific time on Tuesday, March 5, 2024. Unless the court ordered otherwise, the matter would be considered submitted once NetRoadshow filed its response.
Disposition
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ordered service of the motion and set a deadline for NetRoadshow’s opposition. The order did not resolve the request for a temporary restraining order or the request for a preliminary injunction.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.