COMFORCARE FRANCHISE SYSTEMS, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company v. Comforcare Hillsboro Mcminnville Corporation, an Oregon corporation

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 20a0466n.06
No. 19-2467
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
COMFORCARE FRANCHISE SYSTEMS, LLC, a
Michigan limited liability company,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COMFORCARE HILLSBORO MCMINNVILLE
CORPORATION, an Oregon corporation; LIONEL
LARMANGER, an Oregon resident; KIMERIE
LARMANGER, an Oregon resident
Defendants-Appellees.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Before: GRIFFIN, KETHLEDGE, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.
KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff ComForCare Franchise Systems (“CFS”) appeals
the district court’s decision to grant only in part CFS’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
We affirm.
CFS entered into a Franchise Agreement with the defendants (whom we refer to as “the
Larmangers”), pursuant to which the Larmangers would provide in-home healthcare services. The
Larmangers later notified CFS that they were terminating the agreement and that they would
continue serving their existing patients. CFS then brought this suit, claiming among other things
that the Larmangers were in violation of a non-compete provision in the agreement. CFS also
moved for a preliminary injunction, seeking basically to enjoin the Larmangers (and their 53
employees) from providing any services to any patients. The district court granted the motion for
the most part, but denied it as to the Larmangers’ provision of services to their 79 existing patients.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 19-2467, ComForCare Franchise Systems v. ComForCare Hillsboro McMinnville, et al.
2
We affirm largely on the basis of the district court’s thorough opinion. CFS’s overarching
complaint on appeal is that the district court “rewrote” the parties’ non-compete provision when it
allowed the Larmangers to continue serving their existing patients during the pendency of this
litigation. But that argument itself seriously misconstrues the nature of the decision at issue here.
No contract can dictate to a federal district court a decision whether to grant injunctive relief. That
decision instead depends upon an exercise of the court’s discretion, as bounded by the relevant
factors from the caselaw. See Trump v. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project, 137 S. Ct. 2080, 2087
(2017); S. Glazer’s Distribs. of Ohio, LLC v. Great Lakes Brewing Co., 860 F.3d 844, 854 (6th
Cir. 2017). The district court wisely applied those factors by recognizing that health-care providers
are not commodities, and found that the Larmangers’ existing patients would suffer if the
Larmangers were enjoined from serving them. We find no abuse of discretion.
Affirmed.

-- 2 of 2 --