Ifreedom Direct Corporation, a Utah corporation v. Peter Mccormick, an individual

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IFREEDOM DIRECT CORPORATION, a
Utah corporation,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PETER MCCORMICK, an individual;
VETERANS FIRST REAL ESTATE
AND MORTGAGE COMPANY, a
California corporation,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-55877
D.C. No.
8:16-cv-00470-JLS-KES
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 5, 2016**
Pasadena, California
Before: PREGERSON, D.W. NELSON, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
FILED
DEC 08 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

iFreedom Direct Corporation (iFreedom) appeals the district court’s order
denying its motion for a preliminary injunction. The district court denied the
preliminary injunction because iFreedom failed to show a likelihood of irreparable
harm. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Reviewing for abuse of
discretion, we affirm. Herb Reed Enters., LLC v. Florida Entm’t Mgmt., Inc., 736
F.3d 1239, 1247 (9th Cir. 2013).
The district court found that iFreedom’s ten-month delay in seeking a
preliminary injunction undermined its claim of irreparable harm. This finding was
not “illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that may be drawn
from the facts in the record.” Id. (quoting United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d
1247, 1263 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc)). One could infer from the record that
iFreedom was likely to enter the California market around the time it sent Peter
McCormick the cease and desist letter that complained that his use was “likely to
lead to confusion among consumers and the public” and also alleged “violation[s]
of state and federal . . . trademark law.”
Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded
that the evidence iFreedom submitted to show a likelihood of irreparable
harm—primarily the declaration of a mortgage industry expert—was too
2

-- 2 of 3 --

speculative. The expert’s declaration failed to show that harm is likely to occur or
that traditional remedies, like monetary damages, are inadequate. Id. at 1250.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --