George v. Brothers International Desserts

also concedes “Defendants have only partially cut off [his] access” to partnership materials. (Lobas Decl. ¶ 51.) There is no evidence Plaintiff’s limited access has impeded his ability to manage his ongoing deals.

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s request for a mandatory injunction requiring Defendants to distribute profits of 30% to Plaintiff is unwarranted. The Court also finds Plaintiff has not shown irreparable harm in restricted access to partnership materials. However, the Court finds the balancing of harms weighs in favor of granting a preliminary injunction prohibiting Defendants from distributing 22.5% of Plaintiff’s claimed partnership profits to themselves. The motion is therefore GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part, accordingly.

Bond: If a preliminary injunction is granted, the court must require an undertaking. (Code of Civil Procedure section 995.710.) The amount of the bond is to cover any damage to the defendant caused by issuance of the injunction, if it is finally determined that plaintiff was not entitled to the injunction. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 529.) Defendants’ demand for a $500,000 bond is arbitrary and not supported by any evidentiary showing of Defendants’ likely damages. (Oiye v. Fox (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1062 [nominal bond of $1,000 appropriate in the absence of evidentiary showing of enjoined parties’ probable damages].) Plaintiff agrees to a $15,000 bond, which the Court finds is appropriate.

Counsel for Plaintiff shall give notice of this ruling.

6. George v. Brothers Defendant Brothers International Desserts’ Motion to Compel International Desserts Arbitration is DENIED.

In order for an arbitration agreement to be enforceable, each party must agree to it. [Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C.A. §2] In Opposition to the Motion, plaintiff George says there was no agreement because the electronic documents, including his signature, do not establish it. After a careful review of all evidence and argument submitted by the parties, the Court concludes that that defendant’s motion fails for one, unexplained reason. Defendants identify two different email addresses for transactions concerning the agreement without saying why. The Motion says alonzogeorge@brothersdesserts.com. The Reply says alonzog51@gmail.com. This unexplained discrepancy does not allow the Court to conclude an agreement hadbeen shown.