August 05, 2025|Publications
August 8, 2025 | United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida | Unpublished Order
Executive Summary
In an unpublished order, Judge Tom Barber of the Middle District of Florida denied Paint Nail Bar Franchise Company’s request for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) against former franchisees who opened a competing salon in Houston. Paint Nail Bar argued that the defendants, Kenny and Andrea Eddleman and their entity ObiEnterprise, breached the franchise agreement’s non-compete by rebranding their location as “The Polish Bar” while using the same staff, systems, and appearance. The franchisor claimed irreparable harm and sought to shut down the competing operation immediately. The court, however, found that Paint Nail Bar failed to show a true emergency justifying a TRO without notice and deferred consideration of the preliminary injunction until after the defendants are served and have a chance to respond.
Relevant Background
Paint Nail Bar Franchise Company entered into a franchise agreement with the Eddlemans in November 2021 to operate a Paint Nail Bar in Houston, Texas. The Eddlemans formed ObiEnterprise, LLC to run the business but never formally assigned the franchise agreement to that entity. The agreement prohibited competition during the term and for two years following termination. The salon began operations in June 2023. By July 2025, the Eddlemans had rebranded their location as “The Polish Bar” and advertised to customers, “New name, same amazing team you know and love!” Paint Nail Bar treated this as a breach, terminated the franchise agreement, and filed suit for breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets. At the same time, the franchisor moved for a TRO and preliminary injunction to immediately shut down the competing salon.
Decision
Judge Barber explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) and the Middle District of Florida’s Local Rules authorize TROs without notice only in extraordinary circumstances. A movant must demonstrate not just irreparable harm, but also that such harm is so imminent that notice and a hearing are impractical. As the court noted, “[a] motion seeking a temporary restraining order must be supported by allegations of specific facts shown in the verified complaint or accompanying affidavits, not only that the moving party is threatened with irreparable injury, but that such injury is so imminent that notice and a hearing on the application for preliminary injunction is impractical.” Martinez Serna v. Bailey Farms South, LLC, No. 2:21-cv-237-SPC-MRM, 2021 WL 1060176, at *1–2 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 19, 2021).
Paint Nail Bar argued that the competing salon caused irreparable harm by trading on its goodwill and customer base, but it did not provide sworn evidence or a factual explanation showing why immediate action was necessary before defendants could be heard. The court emphasized that conclusory claims of irreparable harm may not satisfy Rule 65(b). In the absence of affidavits or verified facts establishing why notice would be impractical, the court declined to impose the extraordinary remedy of a TRO at this stage.
On that basis, Judge Barber denied the motion insofar as it sought a TRO. He ordered Paint Nail Bar to serve defendants with the summons, complaint, and motion papers, and directed defendants to respond within seven days of service. He further advised that the request for a preliminary injunction would be considered on an expedited basis once defendants had an opportunity to be heard. Thus, while the court left open the possibility of injunctive relief, it refused to bypass normal adversarial procedures absent the showing required by Rule 65(b).
Looking Forward
This ruling highlights the high burden franchisors face when seeking emergency relief. Courts reserve TROs without notice for circumstances where irreparable harm is so immediate that the opposing party cannot be heard. Even when franchisees openly violate non-compete covenants, judges may decline to act without adversarial input if the franchisor cannot show that waiting a few days for notice and a hearing would cause irreparable loss.
For franchisors, the lesson is twofold. First, counsel should prepare evidentiary support when requesting emergency relief, including detailed affidavits explaining why notice is impractical. Conclusory assertions will not meet Rule 65(b)’s strict standards. Second, franchisors should plan enforcement strategies with the expectation that preliminary injunctions, not TROs, are the most realistic tool. That means focusing on strong factual showings of breach, damages, and protectable interests under state law and the franchise agreement. By building a record that demonstrates both contractual violations and immediate brand harm, franchisors may improve their odds of securing meaningful relief once the court considers a preliminary injunction.
Thomas O’Connell is a Shareholder at Buchalter APC and Chair of the firm’s Franchise Practice Group. For questions about this article or media inquiries, you can contact Tom at toconnell@buchalter.com.
This communication is not intended to create or constitute, nor does it create or constitute, an attorney-client or any other legal relationship. No statement in this communication constitutes legal advice nor should any communication herein be construed, relied upon, or interpreted as legal advice. This communication is for general information purposes only regarding recent legal developments of interest, and is not a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. No reader should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included herein without seeking appropriate legal advice on the particular facts and circumstances affecting that reader. For more information, visit www.buchalter.com.
