A Utah federal court denied a motion by Larada Sciences, Inc. d/b/a Lice Clinics of America (“LCA”) for a preliminary injunction preventing former LCA franchisee The MIH Group, LLC from operating competing lice treatment clinics in the same locations as their former franchised clinics. Larada Sciences, Inc. v. The MIH Group, LLC, 2026 WL 458019 (D. Utah Feb. 18, 2026).
The district court found that LCA failed to meet its burden to establish that LCA would likely suffer irreparable harm absent a preliminary injunction. After MIH’s six franchise agreements with LCA expired, MIH operated on a month-to-month basis before giving notice of its intent to terminate and continue operating in the same locations under the name “Rapunzel’s Lice Boutiques.” LCA sued in June 2024, alleging MIH breached a non-compete and other covenants by disseminating LCA’s proprietary information, trade secrets and goodwill and continuing to operate lice treatment clinics at the same locations. In August 2025, LCA moved for a preliminary injunction.
LCA claimed that MIH’s rebranding and continued operation of lice treatment clinics would damage its goodwill, franchise system, and competitive standing, but the court concluded these assertions were speculative and unsupported by evidence. The problem was amplified by LCA’s significant delay – it waited nearly twenty months after learning of the alleged breaches and over a year after filing suit before seeking injunctive relief. The court considered this inconsistent with any claim of urgent or continuing harm. The court also determined that the other preliminary injunction factors weighed against LCA. It found no “clear and unequivocal” likelihood of success for LCA, since MIH questioned the enforceability of the non‑compete provisions and alleged LCA’s own non‑performance. The balance of hardships favored MIH, which showed it would likely be forced to shut down its business if enjoined, whereas LCA’s alleged harm consisted primarily of lost franchise fees and speculative competitive injury. Finally, the court held that the public interest favored preserving competition and consumer choice.
[View source.]
