Skillset Group, LLC vs. Samuel Hale, LLC
Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Motion type
Parties
Ruling
1 Skillset Group, LLC vs. Motion for Preliminary Injunction Samuel Hale, LLC Plaintiffs Skillset Group, LLC’s and Skillset Group, 30-2026-01542587 Inc.’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED.
Until final judgment is entered in this action or further court order, Defendants Samuel Hale, LLC; Samuel Hale 2, LLC; Samuel Hale 3, LLC; Samuel Hale 4, LLC; and their agents are enjoined and prohibited from the following:
1. Further acquiring, disclosing, or using any of Plaintiffs’ trade secrets; and
2. Interfering with Plaintiffs’ current contractual and prospective economic relationships by unwanted contacts with Plaintiffs’ employees and workforce.
3. Defendants may contact any workers as necessary for the purpose of continuing insurance or benefits-administration obligations owed to workers already enrolled in Defendants' programs, or to respond to those workers' own inquiries about their own coverage. However, Defendants and their agents shall not disparage Plaintiffs in any such communications.
Pending Motion
Plaintiffs Skillset Group, LLC and Skillset Group, Inc. move for a preliminary injunction that:
1. enjoins and prohibits Defendants Samuel Hale, LLC; Samuel Hale 2, LLC; Samuel Hale 3, LLC; Samuel Hale 4, LLC from further acquiring, disclosing, or using any of Plaintiffs’ trade secrets;
2. enjoins and prohibits Defendants from interfering with Plaintiffs’ current contractual and prospective economic relationships by unwanted contacts with Plaintiffs’ employees and workforce; and
3. enjoins and prohibits Defendants from disparaging Plaintiffs in any necessary communications with workers for the purpose of continuing insurance or
benefits-administration obligations owed to workers already enrolled in Defendants’ programs, or in responding to those workers’ own inquiries about their own coverage.
Prior Proceedings
On August 3, 2026, the court carefully considered the evidence and law, and issued a temporary restraining order that restrained Defendants from:
1. Further acquiring, disclosing, or using any of Plaintiffs’ trade secrets; and
2. Interfering with Plaintiffs’ current contractual and prospective economic relationships by unwanted contacts with Plaintiffs’ employees and workforce.
Defendants may contact any workers as necessary for the purpose of continuing insurance or benefits-administration obligations owed to workers already enrolled in Defendants' programs, or to respond to those workers' own inquiries about their own coverage. However, Defendants and their agents shall not disparage Plaintiffs in any such communications.
(ROA #49 at pp. 1-2.)
Plaintiffs now seek a preliminary injunction that grants the same relief.
Defendants state that they “are not opposed to that [temporary restraining] order remaining in place for the duration of this litigation.” (ROA #57 at p. 2:6-7.)
Therefore, the court will grant a preliminary injunction having the same scope as the temporary restraining order, but which will stay in place until final judgment is issued in this case.
Plaintiffs shall give notice of this ruling.
Cited authorities
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Ask about this ruling
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”