A federal court in Missouri recently denied franchisor Three Dog Bakery, LLC’s request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against its former franchisee, J.L.E.T. Enterprises SWF, LLC, and its owners, Joseph and Lynette Naughton, who allegedly continued to operate a competing pet bakery after termination of the franchise agreement. KC Processing Co., LLC v. J.L.E.T. Enters. SWF, LLC, 2025 WL 1683476, (W.D. Mo. June 16, 2025).
The dispute arose after Three Dog Bakery terminated the franchise agreement on May 18, 2025, but alleged that J.L.E.T. Enterprises continued to operate a pet bakery at the Sarasota, Florida location using the Three Dog Bakery’s confidential information, licensed marks, equipment, and processes. Three Dog Bakery sought a TRO to enjoin and restrain J.L.E.T. Enterprises from violating the franchise agreement’s noncompete provision and using Three Dog Bakery’s proprietary assets.
The court denied the request for a TRO, holding that Three Dog Bakery failed to meet the high burden required for this “extraordinary and drastic remedy.” A court will not issue a TRO unless “the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” The court considered four factors: (1) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant; (2) the balance between this harm and any injury that granting the injunction will inflict on the non-moving party; (3) the likelihood that the moving party will prevail on the merits; and (4) the public interest. The court emphasized that Three Dog Bakery’s verified complaint lacked specific facts demonstrating a threat of immediate and irreparable harm that could not be remedied by monetary damages. The complaint’s single allegation was that “upon information and belief,” J.L.E.T. Enterprises continued to operate the bakery post-termination. The court found this was too speculative and conclusory to justify emergency relief. The court also noted that Three Dog Bakery waited a month after terminating the franchise agreement before seeking a TRO, undercutting a claim of urgency or imminent harm.
While the court acknowledged that Three Dog Bakery had at least a fair chance of prevailing on the merits, this factor alone was not enough. The court also found that the balance of harms slightly favored granting the injunction as the requested relief would merely require J.L.E.T. Enterprises to comply with its contractual obligations, but this factor carried minimal weight in the overall analysis. Lastly, the court concluded that the public interest did not weight in favor of either party for purposes of the TRO. After balancing these four factors the court concluded that Three Dog Bakery had not clearly met its burden of persuasion showing entitlement to a TRO. The court denied the requested TRO and withheld ruling on Three Dog Bakery’s request for a preliminary injunction until the issue could be fully briefed.
*Angelina Ferrara is a Summer Associate for Lathrop GPM who contributed to the writing of this post.