iGUARANTEE™ secures important initial victory in lawsuit

iGUARANTEE™ secures an important initial victory in a lawsuit raised by Tinubu Square Americas.

On November 25th, United States District Judge BRIAN J. DAVIS entered a detailed order following his examination of the documentary evidence and oral argument of counsel presented during a court hearing.

Background:

Tinubu initiated suit on August 5, 2020, by asserting claims of breach of contract, trade secret infringement, tortious interference with contract, and unfair competition for Defendants’ alleged actions involving the eSURETY® program.  Tinubu filed an MPI based upon its suggestion that iGUARANTEE™ violated the law and was therefore liable to Tinubu for the claims raised. iGUARANTEE™ responded and opposed the allegations and set forth sufficient undisputed and indisputable evidence that it did not breach the contract at issue, did not infringe on eSURETY® trade secrets, and did not unfairly compete with the eSURETY® program. 

Abstract of order:

  1. There is no evidence that any of the Defendants interfered with Tinubu’s customers or induced anyone to misuse eSURETY® source code because Tinubu has not lost any business from any of its customers, Tinubu has not lost potential new business in a field within which it operates, and there is no evidence that eSURETY®’s source code or operation was misappropriated. For the same reason the Court determined that no one violated their non-compete clauses, the Court cannot find that any Defendants interfered with Tinubu’s contractual rights not to have Defendants compete with Tinubu after termination of their employment.
  2. The Court determined that Tinubu was not in the bail bond market.
  3. Defendants established that Tinubu has never participated in the bail bond market and had no plans to participate in the bail bond industry.
  4. Likewise, because Defendants only operate in the bail bond industry and Tinubu has not lost any business with its customers … have not caused and are not likely to cause any harm to Tinubu that can be avoided by a preliminary injunction.

Accordingly, after due consideration, it was decided that:

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 98) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendants and anyone working in conjunction with Defendants either directly or indirectly are ENJOINED from:

(a)        Copying, disclosing, using, modifying, or accessing the eSURETY® source code; and

(b)        Soliciting Tinubu employees during the pendency of this case.

In the spirit of cooperation and good faith during the initial phase of the litigation, iGUARANTEE™ agreed to be enjoined from certain activities that it did not oppose, those being: (A) Copying, disclosing, using, modifying, or accessing the eSURETY® source code; and (B) Soliciting Tinubu employees during the pendency of this case. Given iGUARANTEE™’s voluntary agreement to the restriction’s scope, the Court entered an order consistent with this position. It limited the otherwise broad MPI that Tinubu sought to only those two narrow points.