Firm Defeats Plaintiff’s Attempt to Obtain Restraining Order

Long Island litigation attorney Peter Famighetti obtained a monumental victory for his client, a small business owner. Famighetti defeated a plaintiff’s attempts to restrict the way the business owner operated his business and received profits from the business. Today’s blog discusses the dispute, Famighetti’s work to obtain a favorable result for his client, and the court’s decision.

As part of the firm’s general litigation portfolio of cases, Peter Famighetti represents the owner of a social media brand and who is a defendant in a lawsuit. In the lawsuit, the plaintiff alleges that he is a 50% owner of the social media brand and that Famighetti’s client terminated and excluded the plaintiff from the partnership.

Upon filing the lawsuit, the plaintiff also sought an immediate court order enjoining the defendant from posting certain content on behalf of the brand which the plaintiff alleges could violate the social media platform’s policies. In the same application, the plaintiff sought a court order appointing a temporary receiver to receive all future assets of the brand. Famighetti appeared in court to argue against the application and submitted opposition papers.

The plaintiff’s application argued that he is a 50% owner of the social media brand, but that the defendant sent a letter to him in the spring 2019 “ousting” him from the partnership. The plaintiff further argued that since the “ouster,” the defendant “mismanaged” the brand and violated platform policies causing monetary losses to the business.

In opposition, Famighetti submitted evidence that his client solely created the brand in 2012, years before the plaintiff was ever involved with the brand. Eventually, the client agreed to allow the plaintiff to contribute to the brand, because he was a fan of the content. For his contribution, the plaintiff was paid a percentage of money earned through “monetization” of a website. After Famighetti’s client decided to sever ties with the plaintiff, the brand expanded into other social media platforms. Further, Famighetti suggested that the plaintiff’s action caused monetization bans, not anything done by the defendant.

In reviewing the plaintiff’s application for immediate relief, the court noted the plaintiff was required to make a showing of (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury absent the requested relief; and (3) a balancing of equities in the moving party’s favor. The court further noted that injunctive relief is a drastic remedy and the moving party must show a “clear right to” relief.

Reviewing the facts before, the court unequivocally determined that the plaintiff did not meet his burden. Specifically, the court noted that the plaintiff did not show a clear right to relief based on undisputed facts because Famighetti’s client disputed “all material allegations.” Additionally, the plaintiff referenced certain contracts which were relevant to the dispute, but did not show them to the court, so the court could not determine whether the plaintiff could prevail on his claims. Moreover, the plaintiff did not show irreparable injury.

As to the appointment of a temporary receiver, the court noted that the plaintiff was required to show that the property which is related to the disputed was going to be destroyed or lost. The court readily determined that not only was the business’s property not being lost or destroyed, but rather the brand was growing across additional social media platforms and with additional followers. The plaintiff did not dispute this. Moreover, the brand’s value also increased, confirming property was not being lost.

In sum, Famighetti won a monumental victory for his client. Not only can the client continue operating his business, but he can continue receiving the profits from his work. The case is a prime example of the firm’s ability to successfully litigate across a spectrum of disputes, from employment litigation cases to business disputes, such as this.

If you have a question about lawsuits, business disputes, partnership disputes, or litigation in general, contact a litigation attorney at Famighetti & Weinick PLLC. The firm’s phone number is 631-352-0050 and our website can be found at http://linycemploymentlaw.com.

The foregoing recitation of facts is taken from the court’s order in this matter and provided as the manner in which the court accepted the facts in this case.

Firm wins denial of application for preliminary injunction