Equity One Franchisors, LLC v. Dishon, Jr.

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
EQUITY ONE FRANCHISORS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 4:26-cv-115-MAL
JOHNNY (“JOHN”) DISHON, JR.,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the motion of Plaintiff Equity One Franchi-
sors, LLC (“Equity One”), for a Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 5) against De-
fendant Johnny (“John”) Dishon, Jr. (“Dishon”). 	Because Equity One has failed to
establish that it will suffer irreparable harm absent preliminary relief, the motion is
DENIED.
Background
Equity One licenses GlobalGreen insurance agencies. 	Doc. 1 at ¶ 1. 	Johnny
Dishon used to own and operate one of those agencies, id. at ¶ 2, but he now operates
a competing insurance agency in the same area, allegedly using Equity One’s cus-
tomer lists to solicit those customers to transfer their policies to his new agency. Id.
at ¶¶ 23–32; Doc. 11. Equity One quickly filed this lawsuit to put a stop to Dishon’s
actions. 	Doc. 1. 	Asserting breach of contract and trade secret misappropriation
claims, Equity One has asked this Court to enter a temporary restraining order en-
joining Dishon from operating his new insurance agency and ordering him and his
employees to stop misusing and disclosing Equity One trade secrets. Docs. 1, 5, 6.
Analysis
Cases like this do not warrant preliminary relief because there is no likelihood
that irreparable harm will result in the future without such relief. In Choreo, LLC v.
Case: 4:26-cv-00115-MAL Doc. #: 16 Filed: 02/17/26 Page: 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Lors, the Eighth Circuit reversed a district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction
in a case with facts similar to those here. 	164 F.4th 667 (8th Cir. 2026). 	There,
employees of a financial services firm joined a competitor and began poaching the
firm’s clients and employees. Id. at 669–70. The firm sued the employees for breach-
ing multiple restrictive covenants in their employment agreements and for stealing
the firm’s trade secrets. 	Id. at 669. 	The Eighth Circuit held that the district court
abused its discretion in granting preliminary relief because the harm suffered by the
firm—economic losses—could be remedied with money damages. 	Id. at 671. 	And
even though “the permanent loss of customer goodwill can constitute irreparable in-
jury,” id., the Court found that the firm’s conclusory declarations that the harm from
the loss of goodwill was incalculable, “but not explaining why the loss defies calcula-
tion,” was not enough to demonstrate irreparable harm. Id. at 672.
As in Choreo, there is no likelihood of irreparable harm here. Even if Dishon
has blatantly violated his contractual obligations, Equity One has not demonstrated
that the resulting harm from those violations is not reparable with money damages.
In fact, this case is all about money. 	No ancient oak tree is about to be torn down.
No historic landmark is about to be destroyed. 	No toxins are about to leak into the
water table. And no person is facing deprivation of their constitutional rights. Equity
One has brought this suit to remedy lost business revenues associated with a com-
petitive business attempting to siphon its customers. 	These losses are measurable
and can be remedied with money damages. 	Indeed, the insurance industry is more
than competent in calculating such losses. 	Equity One’s conclusory statement that
these losses “are not readily ascertainable or subject to valuation” fails to demon-
strate otherwise. Doc. 6 at 16.
The same is true for Equity One’s trade secrets claims. The trade secrets iden-
tified by Equity One include mostly customer lists. For the reasons stated above, lost
business is reparable through monetary damages. To the extent there are more neb-
ulous competitive advantages associated with trade secrets other than customer lists,
Equity One has failed to identify what those advantages are and why they cannot be
calculated through a monetary damages award.
Case: 4:26-cv-00115-MAL Doc. #: 16 Filed: 02/17/26 Page: 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Conclusion
Because Equity One has not demonstrated that it is likely to suffer irreparable
harm absent preliminary relief, the request for a temporary restraining order must
be denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Equity One’s motion for a Tempo-
rary Restraining Order (Doc. 5) is DENIED.
Dated this 17th day of February, 2026.
____________________________________
MARIA A. LANAHAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:26-cv-00115-MAL Doc. #: 16 Filed: 02/17/26 Page: 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>