SOFTKETEERS, INC., a California corporation v. REGAL WEST CORPORATION, DBA Regal Logistics, a Washington corporation;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SOFTKETEERS, INC., a California
corporation,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
REGAL WEST CORPORATION, DBA
Regal Logistics, a Washington corporation;
et al.,
Defendants-Appellants.
No. 19-55529
D.C. No.
8:19-cv-00519-JVS-JDE
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 5, 2019
Submission Deferred November 8, 2019
Resubmitted December 13, 2019
Pasadena, California
Before: FARRIS, McKEOWN, and PARKER,** Circuit Judges.
Regal West Corporation (“Regal”) appeals from the district court’s order
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Barrington D. Parker, Jr., United States Circuit Judge
for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.
FILED
DEC 16 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
granting Softketeers, Inc.’s (“Softketeers”) motion for a preliminary injunction in
its action for copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets. The
parties are familiar with the facts, so we do not repeat them here.
We review a district court’s order granting a motion for a preliminary
injunction for abuse of discretion. adidas Am., Inc. v. Skechers USA, Inc., 890
F.3d 747, 753 (9th Cir. 2018). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1),
and we affirm in part and remand in part.
A motion for a preliminary injunction is governed by the multi-factor test
outlined by the Supreme Court in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council,
Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Under the Winter test, the plaintiff has the burden to
establish: (1) likelihood of success on the merits, (2) that the plaintiff is likely to
suffer irreparable harm if the preliminary injunction is not granted, (3) that the
balance of equities favors the plaintiff, and (4) that the injunction is in the public
interest. Id.
Applying the Winter factors, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
granting Softketeers’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The court concluded
that, on the record before it, Softketeers had established a likelihood that it would
succeed on its copyright and misappropriation of trade secrets claims, that it would
likely suffer irreparable harm absent a preliminary injunction, that the balance of
equities favored Softketeers, and that the injunction was in the public interest.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
The district court also did not abuse its discretion by issuing the preliminary
injunction without an evidentiary hearing. In our circuit, there is no presumption
that the issuance of a preliminary injunction requires an evidentiary hearing. See
Int’l Molders’ & Allied Workers’ Local Union v. Nelson, 799 F.2d 547, 555 (9th
Cir. 1986).
We remand to the district court the issue of the bond imposed in conjunction
with the preliminary injunction. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) allows the
district court to require a party to post “security in an amount that the court
considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to
have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” After considering the dispute
between the parties as to the potential costs and damages of a wrongful injunction,
the district court imposed a bond of $75,000. However, the district court did not
provide a rationale for this low bond. We remand to the district court to provide a
reason why it arrived at that figure and, if appropriate, reconsider the amount of the
bond.
AFFIRMED IN PART AND REMANDED IN PART.
Each party shall pay its own costs on appeal.

-- 3 of 3 --