Inside Baseball: Business Dispute Cancels Youth Baseball Events & Highlights the Importance of Proper Business Planning.
The King County Superior Court’s recent rulings in favor of the plaintiff in an unfair competition business dispute (Elysian One, Inc. v. Evasick et al., No. 24-2-27142-2 SEA) will have a major impact on the youth baseball community in the Seattle Area in 2026 and 2027.
If you are a baseball parent in the Pacific Northwest, you may unknowingly be familiar with some of the facts at issue. This case has its origins in the summer of 2024, when Elysian One, Inc. (known as “EL1”) wrapped up the 2024 season of the “Seattle Elite League” and was then seemingly supplanted by the new “Top Tier” League.
The lawsuit alleges that four of EL1’s operational employees resigned in the summer of 2024 and promptly announced their new venture, Top Tier Sports. EL1 filed suit against the former employees and their new business venture alleging numerous weighty claims including breach of contract (under various “Non-Compete” and “Non-Solicitation agreements”), unjust enrichment, breach of duty of loyalty, misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference, and breach of the Consumer Protection Act.
As Top Tier’s leagues and tournaments flourished in 2025 and 2026, the two companies waged battle in the Superior Court. The case went to trial in June 2026. In July 2026, the Court rendered its ruling largely in favor of EL1. On September 1, 2026, the Court expanded the injunctive relief granted in favor of EL1 and against Top Tier and the individual defendants.
The Court’s Amended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are extensive (50-pages) and they paint a grim picture for the defendants. The Court found liability on numerous claims and entered a six-figure damages award in favor of EL1.
While the case is a cautionary tale demonstrating the importance of consulting with counsel to ensure you understand your contractual and statutory obligations before you act, today we want to focus on just one small, but highly impactful, aspect of the Court’s ruling: the injunctive relief.
Near the end of the 50-page ruling, the Court exercised its “broad discretionary power to fashion equitable remedies” and entered an injunction prohibiting “Top Tier and each of the Individual Defendants from running Fall Ball League in the calendar year of 2026, Spring League in the calendar year of 2027” and tournaments on certain weekends in Spring/Summer of 2027. [Amended Findings & Conclusions ¶¶ 205-208].
In the weeks following the ruling, EL1 requested clarification of the injunctive ruling, arguing the defendant had attempted advertised planned events in a manner to try to evade the injunctive ruling.
On September 1, 2026, the Court amended its ruling to “enjoin[ing] Top Tier and each of the Individual Defendants from engaging in any youth baseball activities from September 1, 2026, to August 30, 2027. This includes coaching, consulting, organizing, soliciting for, reserving fields related, participating in, or being compensated related to any youth baseball events within the State of Washington. This injunction includes such activity by Individual Defendants on behalf of entities other than Top Tier.”
What is Injunctive Relief?
The remedies a court may award at the conclusion of a trial fall into two categories: legal remedies and equitable remedies. The traditional legal remedy is monetary damages. For example, if a plaintiff proves that the defendant breached a contract, the court will typically award an amount of money that will make the plaintiff “whole.” But sometimes money alone cannot adequately compensate the plaintiff and, therefore, the plaintiff will ask the court to fashion an equitable remedy.
Here, EL1 sought the equitable remedy of injunctive relief.
In simple terms, an injunction is a court order that prohibits a party from engaging in certain conduct for a specified period of time. Injunctions can be entered both before or after trial. An injunction issued at the conclusion of trial after a plaintiff has prevailed on its claims is called a “permanent injunction.” An injunction issued before trial is called a “preliminary injunction.” The purpose of a “preliminary injunction” is typically to prevent the plaintiff from suffering irreparable harm that might result if an injunction is not granted until the conclusion of trial, when the plaintiff finally proves its claims. For more background on injunctions, see the linked blog entries written by our colleagues Andrew McKenzie and Babak Shamsi.
Plaintiff’s Complaint Seeks Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief
In civil litigation, the plaintiff’s “Complaint” sets forth the basic factual allegations against the defendant(s), outlines the legal claims asserted, and sets forth the relief that the plaintiff will ask the court to enter in its favor.
Here, the plaintiff requested that the court enter judgment against each defendant and award relief in favor of Plaintiff for (among other things):
- A preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting all defendants from using plaintiff’s confidential information (including its client list) for the benefit of Top Tier;
- A preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting all defendants from “planning, scheduling, or executing any youth baseball and softball tournaments with coaches from EL1’s client list”; and
- A preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting one of the individual defendants from competing in violation of a non-compete agreement or soliciting clients, employees or customers in violation of a non-solicitation agreement.
While outlining the requested relief, the purpose of the Complaint is simply to frame the issues for the remainder of the case. Preliminary injunctions are determined through pretrial motions. Permanent injunctions are decided at the conclusion of the trial.
No Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Despite requesting preliminary injunctive relief in the Complaint, the plaintiff never filed a motion for preliminary injunction. As a result, there was never an order issued prohibiting Top Tier from running baseball leagues or tournaments prior to the trial.
Left unrestrained by a binding court order, Top Tier hosted youth baseball leagues for various age groups in the Greater Seattle Area and tournaments around Washington State. For example, in 2026, Top Tier hosted 9 separate age-based spring leagues (12U, 13U Bronze, 13U Silver, 13U Gold, 14U Silver, 14U Gold, 15U, 16U, 18U and College Prep).
The Parties Trial Briefs
Prior to trial, litigants are required to submit trial briefs discussing the issues and claims to be presented at trial. The Statement of Facts section begins with a sentence explaining that EL1 was formed by people “who believe in the positive impact that youth sports can have on young athletes’ lives.” [Plt’s Trial Brief at 4]. Injunctive relief was not a major focus of plaintiff’s trial brief. In a single paragraph on page 37 of the 40-page brief, plaintiff argued that there are five separate bases upon which the court could award injunctive relief. But plaintiff did not discuss any of those bases or the requested relief. Rather, Plaintiff wrote:
Appreciating that the Parties will be participating in a bench trial with the possibility, if not likelihood, of post-trial briefing, EL1 respectfully suggest that the contours of the prospective injunctive relief should be laid out with the benefit of a full view of the facts from trial and the Court’s liability determination.
[Plt’s Trial Brief at 37-38].
The defendants argued that permanent injunctive relief would be improper for various reasons. In the Trial Brief’s Introduction section, the defendants argued:
Overbroad restrictions on competition are . . . unconscionable as a matter of public policy when the result is fewer opportunities for youth sports.
[Dfts’ Trial Brief at 3].
Later, the defendants cited the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 US 388, 391 (2006), for the proposition that the plaintiff must meet the following four-part test to obtain permanent injunctive relief:
A plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.”
[Dfts’ Trial Brief at 29-30].
While the defendants argued that the plaintiff cannot satisfy any of the four prongs of the test, defendants’ brief treatment of the final element is notable:
Lastly, and most importantly, the public interest would be disserved by a permanent injunction in this instance. The effect of a permanent injunction here would be to reduce the available options for children’s sports tournaments in the relevant geographic area.
[Dfts’ Trial Brief at 30].
It is unclear what additional arguments the parties may have made about the requested injunctive relief orally at trial.
The Injunction Ruling
Following trial, the Court issued its ruling finding in favor of Plaintiff on all claims except breach of the Consumer Protection Act. In the 228 paragraph ruling, the Court addressed plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief in Paragraphs 205 through 208.
In Paragraph 206, the Court found that the damages awarded to plaintiff for past financial harm to plaintiff “does not prevent further irreparable harm by Defendants due to their intentional disruption of EL1’s market share of the league and tournament business.” The Court concluded that “[s]uch additional harm can only be addressed by injunctive/equitable relief.”
In so ruling, the Court did not address defendants’ argument that injunctive relief would do a disservice to the public interest. There is no discussion in the ruling of the potential impact the injunction might have on youth baseball opportunities in Washington State.
In Paragraph 208 (the final paragraph addressing the requested injunctive relief), the Court enjoined the defendants from:
“running Fall Ball League in the calendar year 2026, Spring League in the calendar year of 2027, and any tournament offering in Washington state on the first weekend of each month in the Spring/Summer 2027 tournament season.”
Several weeks after the ruling, the defendants sought clarification of the injunctive ruling. Defendants asked the Court to clarify the meaning of “Fall Ball League” including, clarifying whether fall tournaments would fall within the definition of “Fall Ball League.” Defendants further asked the Court to clarify the geographic scope of the injunctive.
In its responsive briefs, the plaintiff argued that the defendants had sought to evade the Court’s injunctive ruling by announcing a fall “tournament series”, which the plaintiffs argued “appears to be a fall league by another name.” Ultimately, the plaintiff requested that the Court “enjoin Defendants from any form of youth baseball operations from September 1, 2026, to August 30, 2027.”
On September 1, 2026, the Court issued an Order on the request for clarification. The Court clarified the scope of the injunctive relief by amending Paragraph 208 of its Amended Finding of Fact and Conclusions to provide:
“208. Accordingly, the court enjoins Top Tier and each of the Individual Defendants from engaging in any youth baseball activities from September 1, 2026, to August 30, 2027. This includes coaching, consulting, organizing, soliciting for, reserving fields related, participating in, or being compensated related to any youth baseball events within the State of Washington. This injunction includes such activity by Individual Defendants on behalf of entities other than Top Tier.”
Neither the clarification briefing nor the Court’s ruling addressed the potential impact this expanded injunctive relief might have on the youth baseball community in Washington State. But it is safe to say that the rulings in this lawsuit will be felt well beyond the walls of the courthouse. If you are a baseball family, it may have a direct impact on your calendar and your baseball expenses over the next twelve months.
Take Aways
This lawsuit highlights the importance of understanding the legal landscape you are facing before making significant business decisions, particularly if you are an employee subject to a written employment agreement with restrictive provisions. If you are contemplating a significant change in your business or employment, contact a member of our team at Beresford Booth. The lawyers at Beresford Booth have extensive experience dealing with all types of business issues and will be happy to discuss your legal options. Contact us at info@beresfordlaw.com or call (425) 776-4100 to see how we can help.