Rice Spice Noodles, Inc. v. Joshua Feldman (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION, No. 105

The present case involves an application filed by the plaintiffs, Rice Spice Noodles, Inc. and Jutharat Feldman, seeking to enjoin the defendants, Joshua Feldman, Adisak a/k/a Lek, Wantana, Beryl Feldman, and 4 Roosevelt, LLC, from operating a Thai restaurant on the premises of 4 Roosevelt Avenue in Mystic, Connecticut.   The plaintiffs filed their original application for an ex-parte temporary injunction on May 8, 2013, and filed an amended application on July 24, 2013 (the application).   The request for an ex-parte injunction was denied and the matter was set down for a hearing on the temporary injunction.   That hearing was conducted on August 2, August 6, and August 14, 2013, with testimony heard from several witnesses.   Both sides also filed briefs on August 16, 2013, arguing their respective positions.

For the purposes of the present application, the court finds the following facts.   The plaintiff Jutharat Feldman and the defendant Joshua Feldman are currently married but in the process of a divorce.¹  From approximately May 2005 to February 2013, the Feldmans owned and operated a Thai restaurant together through the Rice Spice Noodles corporation, which is also a plaintiff to this action.   During that time, Jutharat Feldman was the president and sole shareholder of Rice Spice Noodles, Inc., and Joshua Feldman served as the corporate secretary.   The couple jointly managed the restaurant during that period.   The restaurant, named Rice Spice Noodles, served Thai cuisine with western components, and the dishes were primarily developed in collaboration between Jutharat Feldman and her brother.   In early 2013, Rice Spice Noodles, Inc. was shut down by the Connecticut Department of Revenue Services for failure to pay its state sales tax.   The corporation was also sued for eviction from the premises by its landlord, Berstev, LLC, which is owned by Joshua Feldman's parents, Steven and Beryl Feldman.   The corporation agreed to vacate the premises by March 7, 2013 but, prior to doing so, Joshua, Steven, and Beryl Feldman removed the restaurant equipment and all other property from the premises on March 1, 2013.   By early May, Jutharat Feldman observed that Joshua Feldman had moved the equipment and property back into the premises and appeared to be preparing to open a restaurant.   Jutharat Feldman also observed the defendants Adisak a/k/a Lek and Wantana at the premises.   Adisak and Wantana are former employees of Rice Spice Noodles, Inc. and familiar with its recipes.   Shortly thereafter, a Thai restaurant did open on the premises, which is currently named 4 Roosevelt Asian Bistro.   The restaurant is owned by the defendant 4 Roosevelt, LLC. That LLC is owned by Steven Feldman and the defendant Beryl Feldman, and Joshua Feldman is a current employee, along with Adisak and Wantana.   The restaurant utilizes a similar menu to the Rice Spice Noodles restaurant and continues to use equipment that was previously used to operate Rice Spice Noodles.

In their application, the plaintiffs request a temporary injunction to prevent the defendants from opening the restaurant or allowing it to continue operations, so as to preserve the status quo of the plaintiffs' “personal property, recipes, business name, goodwill, federal trademark, and trade secrets,” because the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if the defendants' actions are allowed to continue.   The plaintiffs' most significant concern centers on their claim that the defendants are using the plaintiffs' menu, goodwill and trade secret recipes to profit in the operation of their new restaurant.   At the hearing and in their brief, however, the plaintiffs have indicated that they are now withdrawing their request to enjoin the restaurant from operating.   In their brief, the only injunctive relief that they seek is “an order enjoining Joshua Feldman from operating or working at, profiting, assisting, in any way, the competitor defendant.”   In addition, at the hearing and in their brief, the plaintiffs have made the new request that an independent party be appointed to monitor the new restaurant while it is run by the defendants.   This additional request was not requested in their application.   The defendants oppose the granting of either request.   For the reasons more fully set forth below, the court concludes that the plaintiffs' application must be denied.

First, the court addresses the plaintiffs' new request that an independent party be appointed to monitor the defendants' operation of the 4 Roosevelt Asian Bistro restaurant.   Specifically, as stated in their brief, the plaintiffs request that “the business should be placed under the monitoring of an independent person to account regularly to the court and to the parties on the income and expenses ․ [and to] make sure that the obligations are being met, and that there are proper business expenses such as a reasonable lease amount.”   The court declines to consider this request at this time because the plaintiffs' application only requests a temporary injunction, while this new request is more akin to a request for appointment of a receiver.   Granting this last minute request would not only be prejudicial to the defendants, but it is also completely distinct from the request for injunctive relief on which the hearing was held.   Accordingly, this request is well outside the scope of the application for a temporary injunction and will not be addressed.

The court next considers the plaintiffs' request for a temporary injunction.   “The principal purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo until the rights of the parties can be finally determined after a hearing on the merits.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Clinton v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co., 37 Conn.App. 269, 270, 655 A.2d 814 (1995).  “The standard for granting a temporary injunction is well settled.   In general, a court may, in its discretion, exercise its equitable power to order a temporary injunction pending final determination of the order, upon a proper showing by the movant that if the injunction is not granted he or she will suffer irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law ․ A party seeking injunctive relief must demonstrate that:  (1) it has no adequate remedy at law;  (2) it will suffer irreparable harm without an injunction;  (3) it will likely prevail on the merits;  and (4) the balance of equities tips in its favor ․ The plaintiff seeking injunctive relief bears the burden of proving facts which will establish irreparable harm as a result of that violation ․ Moreover, [t]he extraordinary nature of injunctive relief requires that the harm complained of is occurring or will occur if the injunction is not granted.”  (Citations omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  Aqleh v. Cadlerock Joint Venture II, L.P., 299 Conn. 84, 97–98, 10 A.3d 498 (2010).  “In exercising its discretion, the court, in a proper case, may consider and balance the injury complained of with that which will result from interference by injunction.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Moore v. Ganim, 233 Conn. 557, 569 n.25, 660 A.2d 742 (1995).

As previously noted, although the plaintiffs originally requested that the defendants' new restaurant be enjoined from opening or continuing to operate, the plaintiffs have since withdrawn that request and asked only that Joshua Feldman be enjoined from working at or profiting from the restaurant.   Regardless of what injunctive relief is now being sought, the court concludes that the plaintiffs have not met their burden of proving that they will suffer irreparable harm or that there is no adequate remedy at law.   The fact that the plaintiffs consent to the continued operation of the new Thai restaurant at 4 Roosevelt Avenue demonstrates that they will not suffer irreparable harm.   Certainly if the harm were irreparable they would not have consented for it to continue.   Additionally, the lack of irreparable harm is further supported by Jutharat Feldman's testimony at the hearing that she had no immediate intention to attempt a re-opening of Rice Spice Noodles, and, if she did open another restaurant, it is more likely to serve American food.   Moreover, the plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law through compensatory damages for the alleged conversion of property and restaurant equipment and for the claimed violation of the plaintiffs' trade secret recipes.   These damages can be quantified by experts qualified to appraise the value of the restaurant equipment and the value of speciality recipes.   In fact, the plaintiffs' withdrawal of their request to shut down the restaurant, and asking instead for the appointment of a receiver, indicates that their strategic approach has seemingly shifted to obtaining monetary compensation rather than preventing the operation of the restaurant.   As a result of the plaintiffs not meeting their burden, it would not be appropriate for the court to grant a temporary injunction in this case.²

For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiffs' application for a temporary injunction is denied.

Goldberg, JTR

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The pending divorce action is Feldman v. Feldman, Superior Court, judicial district of New London at Norwich, Docket No. FA–12–4119410–S.   Although this case and the divorce case are separate, a number of issues in them are being litigated together for the purposes of judicial economy, particularly because Rice Spice Noodles, Inc. is the most significant marital asset for Joshua and Jutharat Feldman..  FN1. The pending divorce action is Feldman v. Feldman, Superior Court, judicial district of New London at Norwich, Docket No. FA–12–4119410–S.   Although this case and the divorce case are separate, a number of issues in them are being litigated together for the purposes of judicial economy, particularly because Rice Spice Noodles, Inc. is the most significant marital asset for Joshua and Jutharat Feldman.

FN2. Based on this determination, the court need not address the additional requirements for a temporary injunction regarding whether the plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits or if the balance of equities tip in their favor..  FN2. Based on this determination, the court need not address the additional requirements for a temporary injunction regarding whether the plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits or if the balance of equities tip in their favor.

Goldberg, Joseph H., J.T.R.