BakeMark USA LLC v. Negron
- Analisa Torres
- 1:23-cv-02360
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In BakeMark USA LLC v. Negron, Judge Torres referred BakeMark’s preliminary-injunction motion for an evidentiary hearing because important facts were disputed.
BakeMark USA LLC and defendants Brian Negron, Jose Negron Jr., Bakers Depot LLC, and NF Transportation LLC; the motion will proceed to an evidentiary hearing before Judge Barbara C. Moses.
What happened
BakeMark USA LLC asked the court to issue a preliminary injunction against Brian Negron, Jose Negron Jr., Bakers Depot LLC, and NF Transportation LLC. After expedited discovery and briefing, the court found disputed facts about the companies’ relationship, whether former BakeMark employees worked for Bakers Depot, and how an injunction would affect the defendants’ business.
The court said those disputes could not be resolved from written submissions alone. It determined that an evidentiary hearing was necessary, including to address credibility issues.
Judge Analisa Torres referred the hearing and BakeMark’s motion to Judge Barbara C. Moses by separate order. The June 27, 2023, show-cause hearing was adjourned indefinitely; this order did not decide whether to grant the preliminary injunction.
The detailed version
- BakeMark USA LLC v. Negron · No. 1:23-cv-02360
- Analisa Torres
- June 26, 2023
Background
BakeMark USA LLC moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 for a preliminary injunction against Brian Negron, Jose Negron Jr., Bakers Depot LLC, and NF Transportation LLC. The parties conducted expedited discovery and fully briefed the motion. The submissions included affidavits, deposition transcripts, and other documents.
Disputed Facts
The court identified several contested factual issues, including:
- the relationship between Bakers Depot LLC and JB Freight LLC, and whether JB Freight was only a freight-services company; - whether certain former BakeMark employees worked for Bakers Depot; and - the effect a preliminary injunction would have on the defendants’ business.
The court also noted an allegation that some deposition testimony by defendants was inaccurate.
Ruling
Because the parties’ briefs and affidavits presented disputed factual issues, the court concluded that an evidentiary hearing was necessary. The court explained that preliminary-injunction motions generally should not be decided solely from affidavits when the submissions raise factual disputes and credibility issues.
By separate order, Judge Torres referred the evidentiary hearing and BakeMark’s preliminary-injunction motion to Judge Barbara C. Moses. The show-cause hearing scheduled for June 27, 2023, was adjourned indefinitely. This order did not resolve the merits of BakeMark’s request for a preliminary injunction.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.