Skin Savvy Aesthetics LLC et al v. Panobit LLC et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Skin Savvy Aesthetics LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Panobit LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-26-02332-PHX-KML
ORDER
Plaintiffs Skin Savvy Aesthetics LLC and Crystal Clean Window Team LLC
(collectively “Skin Savvy”) hired defendant Panobit LLC (“Panobit”) to provide IT
services. In January 2026, Skin Savvy informed Panobit it would be terminating the
business relationship. The parties disputed the terms of this termination (and accompanying
transfer of digital assets and control), and on April 1, 2026, Panobit shut down Skin
Savvy’s website, servers, and email accounts. Skin Savvy now seeks a temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction that would primarily require Panobit to restore
its digital infrastructure. (Doc. 7.)
I. Factual Background
Between July 2, 2013 and December 31, 2025, Skin Savvy, a medical aesthetics
practice, purchased, maintained, and renewed six domain names through its principal
Samuel Heffner. (Doc. 7-2 at 7-8, 16-38.) Each was purchased with Skin Savvy funds, used
exclusively for Skin Savvy purposes, and registered in Heffner’s name. (Doc. 7-2 at 8.)
In October 2022, Skin Savvy executed a written Letter of Agency authorizing IT
Case 2:26-cv-02332-KML Document 18 Filed 04/14/26 Page 1 of 10

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
servicer Cynaxa to manage its IT services and act on its behalf “regarding domain names,
web hosting, and other technology services.” (Doc. 7-2 at 8.) That authorization was valid
until October 2025 or written notice terminating Cynaxa’s services. (Doc. 7-2 at 8.) Cynaxa
employee James Staricha managed this relationship, and when he left Cynaxa to become
the principal of Panobit, he continued to provide these services to Skin Savvy. (Doc. 7-2 at
8.) Skin Savvy admits it did not execute a written agreement with Panobit (Doc. 7-2 at 8),
though Staricha in his own capacity provides a May 5, 2025 Letter of Agency authorizing
Panobit to act on Skin Savvy’s behalf for IT needs (Doc. 11 at 5).
Over the course of the business relationship, Skin Savvy gave Cynaxa (and later
Panobit) management capabilities for all its domain names, and Skin Savvy’s emails and
phone system were hosted on Panobit’s servers and under Panobit’s control. (Doc. 7-2 at
9.) Panobit’s control was “strictly custodial” for administrative and maintenance purposes;
Panobit has not claimed it owns the assets. (Doc. 7-2 at 9, 47-48.)
On August 9, 2026, Heffner wrote to Panobit terminating its role as Crystal Clean
Window Team’s IT provider, after which Panobit agreed to transfer and shut down Crystal
Clean’s services. (Doc. 7-2 at 9-10.) On January 15, 2026, Heffner wrote to Panobit
terminating its role as Skin Savvy’s IT provider, effective March 31, 2026. (Doc. 7-2 at 10,
57.) Skin Savvy had around that time hired a new IT company, the Maynard Group. (Doc.
7 at 5.) Panobit responded the next day, demanding certain conditions be met before it
would turn over control of Skin Savvy’s digital assets and cooperate with the transition to
the Maynard Group: Skin Savvy would need to sign a liability release, pay $175/hour
offboarding fees, conduct in-person meetings with Panobit, and pay meeting cancellation
fees. (Doc. 7-2 at 10.) Skin Savvy communicated its refusal to submit to these terms, which
allegedly exceeded the parties’ agreement. (Doc. 7-2 at 10.)
In the following weeks, Panobit refused to cooperate with the transition,
conditioning its “release of Skin Savvy’s credentials on a signed liability release, settlement
of disputed balances, and equipment return.” (Doc. 7-2 at 10-11.) It refused to provide
credentials to the Maynard Group, causing additional costs and delays regarding firewall
Case 2:26-cv-02332-KML Document 18 Filed 04/14/26 Page 2 of 10

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
access. (Doc. 7-2 at 10.) It did not transfer control over Skin Savvy’s phone numbers. (Doc.
7-2 at 10.)
In early March 2026, Skin Savvy notified Panobit it would be initiating chargebacks
for two charges Panobit had made on Skin Savvy’s credit card: one for $2,156.87 that
“Staricha admitted was unintentional” and another for $695.50, which Panobit made after
Skin Savvy had in writing revoked Panobit’s billing authorization. (Doc. 7-2 at 11, 59-62.)
Panobit responded by demanding Skin Savvy withdraw the chargebacks or Panobit would
terminate all Skin Savvy services, including the phone system, emails, and websites. (Docs.
7-1 at 11; 7-2 at 59.) After Skin Savvy sent Staricha a formal demand letter regarding these
disputes, Panobit shut down Skin Savvy’s phone system during business hours. (Doc. 7-1
at 11.) On March 20, 2026, Panobit demanded Skin Savvy resolve certain balances and
sign a release. Skin Savvy declined. On April 1, 2026, Panobit disabled Skin Savvy’s
website, servers, and email accounts, explaining it did so “in response to chargebacks and
non-payment.” (Docs. 7-1 at 11; 7-2 at 47-52.)
Skin Savvy’s websites remain offline and its email accounts remain disabled;
additionally, Panobit has unilaterally changed the contacts for certain domain names from
Heffner to Panobit. (Doc. 7-2 at 11, 65). Another domain name is not receiving emails,
which are unrecoverable. (Doc. 7-2 at 12.) Skin Savvy is unable to communicate with
existing patients, cannot access years of patient communications, vendor records, and
financial documentation, and is unable to determine whether Panobit has permanently
deleted any or all of this data. (Doc. 7-2 at 12.)
Skin Savvy also alleges a hacker gained access to Heffner’s personal iCloud account
and “selectively deleted emails” connected to this litigation. (Doc. 7-2 at 13.) According
to Skin Savvy, the hacker was most likely Panobit. (Doc. 7-2 at 13.)
Skin Savvy filed a lawsuit on April 6, 2026, alleging violations of the Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), tortious interference with business expectations, breach
of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and conversion. (Doc. 1 at 9-15.)
On April 9, 2026, Skin Savvy filed a motion for a temporary restraining order without
Case 2:26-cv-02332-KML Document 18 Filed 04/14/26 Page 3 of 10

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
notice, asking the court to require Panobit to fully restore Skin Savvy’s websites and IT
systems; “take all steps necessary to transfer” all domain name rights, credentials, and
control relating to Skin Savvy’s technical infrastructure, including access rights necessary
for Skin Savvy to “assume exclusive control over its domain names”; refrain from altering,
disabling, or allowing to lapse any digital accounts or services; and preserve evidence of
its use of Skin Savvy’s digital assets, including those belonging to Heffner. (Doc. 7 at 3-
4.) The court declined to issue the temporary restraining order without notice and ordered
a response. (Doc. 9.) Staricha responded on his own behalf but Panobit did not retain
counsel to file a response before the deadline. (Doc. 13.) A temporary restraining order is
granted.
II. Legal Standard for Early Injunctive Relief
Generally, a court analyzes a request for a temporary restraining order under two
slightly-different tests. First, it must evaluate if there is a likelihood of success on the
merits, if there is a likelihood of irreparable harm, whether the balance of equities tips in
the movant’s favor, and whether an injunction would be in the public interest. Winter v.
Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2009). A court typically must also assess
whether “serious questions going to the merits were raised and the balance of hardships
tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor” in addition to showing “a likelihood of irreparable
injury and that the injunction is in the public interest.” All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell,
632 F.3d 1127, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2011).
Skin Savvy seeks relief in the form of a temporary restraining order primarily
requiring Panobit to restore Skin Savvy’s websites and IT systems and transfer access and
administrative control over those systems. (Doc. 7 at 4.) Awarding such relief would take
the form of a “mandatory injunction” because Panobit would be ordered “to take action.”
N. D. v. Reykdal, 102 F.4th 982, 992 (9th Cir. 2024) (simplified); see Doe v. Snyder, 28
F.4th 103, 111 (9th Cir. 2022) (a mandatory injunction “goes beyond simply maintaining
the status quo”). “To obtain a mandatory injunction . . . a plaintiff must establish that the
law and facts clearly favor her position, not simply that she is likely to succeed.” Id.; see
Case 2:26-cv-02332-KML Document 18 Filed 04/14/26 Page 4 of 10

- 5 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 879 (9th Cir.
2009) (requiring showing of “extreme or very serious damage” and that the injury is not
compensable with damages). The Ninth Circuit has implied the Alliance for the Wild
Rockies sliding-scale inquiry is not appropriate for mandatory injunctions. Snyder, 28 F.4th
at 112 n.4; see Johnson v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, No. CV 25-60-M-KLD, 2025
WL 1790345, at *7 (D. Mont. June 26, 2025). Only the Winter test is applied below.
III. Analysis
A. Likelihood of Success
Skin Savvy’s first requirement for obtaining relief is to make a “clear showing” it is
likely to succeed on the merits. Apartment Ass’n of Los Angeles Cnty., Inc. v. City of Los
Angeles, 10 F.4th 905, 911 (9th Cir. 2021). It argues it is likely to succeed on all of its
claims. Based on the available evidence and Panobit’s failure to respond to Skin Savvy’s
arguments, Skin Savvy has made the requisite showing for at least one claim—tortious
interference with business expectations—which is sufficient to satisfy Winter’s first prong.
See League of Wilderness Defs./Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Connaughton, 752
F.3d 755, 765 n.3 (9th Cir. 2014).
i. Tortious Interference with Business Expectations
To prove a claim for tortious interference with business expectations, a plaintiff
must allege (1) a valid business expectancy; (2) knowledge of the expectancy; (3)
intentional interference that induced or caused termination of the expectancy; (4) damage
as a result; and (5) improper conduct. Dube v. Likins, 167 P.3d 93, 99-100 (Ariz. Ct. App.
2007); see Neonatology Assocs., Ltd. v. Phoenix Perinatal Assocs. Inc., 164 P.3d 691, 693-
94 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007) (discussing seven-factor analysis to determine impropriety of
conduct).
Skin Savvy has shown a clear likelihood of success on this claim. It lists as business
expectancies its relationships with current and prospective patients, referral sources, and
marketing partners, alleging each made up a significant part of its business. (Doc. 1 at 11.)
It further alleges Panobit knew of these business relationships through its work as Skin
Case 2:26-cv-02332-KML Document 18 Filed 04/14/26 Page 5 of 10

- 6 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Savvy’s IT provider and intimate engagement with Skin Savvy’s entire business operation.
(Doc. 1 at 11.) Next, the “intentional interference” is clear: Panobit first cut Skin Savvy’s
phone lines and later disabled its entire website and email system, making it impossible for
Skin Savvy to function or operate within its existing patient, sourcing, and vendor
relationships, let alone engage with new customers’ business expectancies. (Doc. 1 at 11.)
This caused damage, including loss of goodwill and reputation. (Doc. 1 at 11-12.) Skin
Savvy also alleges Panobit’s actions were extortionary because the shutdown was
conditioned on Skin Savvy making certain payments and ceasing to contest the
chargebacks, “designed to harm Skin Savvy’s business operations,” retaliatory, and
directly harmful. (Doc. 1 at 13.) This meets Arizona’s test for improper conduct.
Neonatology Assocs., 164 P.3d at 694.
Accordingly, Skin Savvy has shown a clear likelihood of success on this claim.
B. Likelihood of Irreparable Harm
Having established Skin Savvy is likely to succeed on at least one of its claims, the
next issue is whether Skin Savvy has established a likelihood it will suffer irreparable harm.
Skin Savvy alleges “[e]very day in which [its] digital infrastructure remains offline, [it]
suffers additional and compounding harm to its reputation, patient relationships, and
prospective customer base.” (Doc. 7-2 at 13.)
Economic harm “is not generally considered irreparable.” E. Bay Sanctuary
Covenant v. Biden, 993 F.3d 640, 677 (9th Cir. 2021). But “[t]he threat of being driven out
of business is sufficient to establish irreparable harm.” hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp.,
31 F.4th 1180, 1188 (9th Cir. 2022). Additionally, when a plaintiff provides “specific
evidence that its reputation and goodwill [are] likely to be irreparably harmed,” this more-
intangible injury may also qualify as irreparable. adidas Am., Inc. v. Skechers USA, Inc.,
890 F.3d 747, 761 (9th Cir. 2018); see also Rent-A-Ctr., Inc. v. Canyon Television &
Appliance Rental, Inc., 944 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1991).
Skin Savvy is digitally unavailable to its patients and prospective customers and it
cannot access its own websites or emails; the business’s entire public electronic front is
Case 2:26-cv-02332-KML Document 18 Filed 04/14/26 Page 6 of 10

- 7 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
shut down. (Doc. 7-2 at 12.) Skin Savvy has sufficiently alleged this is “actively
destroy[ing]” its reputation and goodwill among patients and customers such that its future
is at risk. (Doc. 7-2 at 13.) For instance, customers who find Skin Savvy is offline will
likely choose a competitor or believe it is unreliable or out of business. (Doc. 7-2 at 12.)
Patients and vendors will likely believe the business has closed without warning and may
leave negative reviews or terminate their relationship with Skin Savvy. (Doc. 7-2 at 12.)
There also may be risk not only to patient relationships, but to patient health; Skin Savvy’s
inability to communicate with patients means it may miss “urgent concerns” like post-
treatment infections or complications. (Doc. 7-2 at 13.) That this reputational injury “does
not readily lend itself to calculable money damages” further supports a finding of
irreparable injury. Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 67 F.4th 946, 1003 (9th Cir. 2023).
Skin Savvy has shown it will suffer “extreme or very serious damage” absent relief.
Marlyn Nutraceuticals Assocs., 571 F.3d at 879.
C. Balance of Equities
The court must also “weigh the damage to each [party] in determining the balance
of the equities.” CTIA - The Wireless Ass’n v. City of Berkeley, California, 928 F.3d 832,
852 (9th Cir. 2019) (simplified). The “damage to each” is measured as “the effect on each
party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 24.
Skin Savvy alleges refusing an injunction will cause grave harm to its reputation,
goodwill, and the future of its business. (Doc. 7-2 at 12.) It is currently suffering harm that
is either irreparable or it will be if it continues. In contrast, the harm (if any) Panobit suffers
from being forced to restore Skin Savvy’s digital infrastructure would be minimal
economic harm from the time spent on that work. Accordingly, granting this injunction
places Panobit at very little risk while withholding the injunction places Skin Savvy at risk
of significant reputational damage that only increases with time. The balance of equities
favors Skin Savvy.
D. Public Interest
“When the reach of an injunction is narrow, limited only to the parties, and has no
Case 2:26-cv-02332-KML Document 18 Filed 04/14/26 Page 7 of 10

- 8 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
impact on non-parties, the public interest will be at most a neutral factor in the analysis
rather than one that favor[s] [granting or] denying the preliminary injunction.” Stormans,
Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1138–39 (9th Cir. 2009).
Though Skin Savvy concedes “there is no indication that the impact will reach
beyond the parties and injure the public in any fashion” (Doc. 7 at 16), its allegations
regarding Skin Savvy’s patients’ disrupted medical communications suggest Skin Savvy’s
patients may benefit from a TRO. Regardless, Skin Savvy’s allegations that there is a
public interest in upholding the law are sufficient to find this a neutral factor. See Henry
Schein, Inc. v. Cook, 191 F.Supp.3d 1072, 1078 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (public interest is served
when injunction requires defendant “to do no more than abide by trade laws and the
obligations of contractual agreements”).
E. Balance of Hardships
A temporary restraining order is “an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of
right.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 24. But Skin Savvy has shown a likelihood of success on at least
one of its claims. Panobit will not suffer significant hardship from restoring Skin Savvy’s
digital infrastructure or transferring access to Skin Savvy’s new IT provider, both of which
appear to be actions Panobit must take in order to comply with the law. See Cook, 191
F.Supp.3d at 1077 (balance tips toward TRO where plaintiff alleges it will suffer
irreparable harm while defendant would be prohibited only from engaging in improper
activity); Dish Network L.L.C. v. Ramirez, No. 15-CV-04712-BLF, 2016 WL 3092184, at
*7 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2016) (same).
IV. Conclusion
Skin Savvy showed a clear likelihood of success on the merits of its tortious
interference with business expectancy claim and established clear and serious irreparable
harm which would not be compensable with a damages award alone. It has made a
sufficient showing of the Winter factors and its motion for a temporary restraining order is
granted.
Case 2:26-cv-02332-KML Document 18 Filed 04/14/26 Page 8 of 10

- 9 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
V. Bond
Although the court has discretion not to order a bond, it declines to waive bond here.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c) (“The court may issue . . . a temporary restraining order only if
the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and
damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully . . . restrained.”). The relief
granted in this order is conditioned upon the posting of security in the amount of $5,000
for payment of such costs and damages as may be incurred or suffered by Panobit in the
event it is later found to have been wrongfully restrained.
IT IS ORDERED the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 7) is
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED upon Skin Savvy’s posting of security, Panobit must
(1) fully restore Skin Savvy’s websites, emails, and other IT systems to fully operational
status; (2) take all steps necessary to transfer to Skin Savvy all rights, titles, control,
custody, and administration associated with its domain names; (3) provide Skin Savvy with
all credentials and other permissions, information, or access rights necessary to enable Skin
Savvy to assume exclusive control over its domain names; (4) transfer to Skin Savvy all
credentials, access, and administrative control relating to Skin Savvy’s technical
infrastructure; (5) refrain from altering, disabling, redirecting, transferring, deleting,
allowing to lapse, modifying, impairing, or otherwise interfering with the subject domain
names, associated websites, DNS records, hosting configurations, email settings, or any
related digital assets, accounts, or services; and (6) preserve all evidence of its current and
past use of Skin Savvy’s websites, emails, phones, and all other digital IT assets, including
the digital assets of Samuel Heffner.
/
/
/
/
/
Case 2:26-cv-02332-KML Document 18 Filed 04/14/26 Page 9 of 10

- 10 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED this order shall expire fourteen days after issuance
unless it is extended by subsequent order.
Dated this 14th day of April, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-02332-KML Document 18 Filed 04/14/26 Page 10 of 10