SALT LAKE CITY — U.S. District Judge Howard C. Nielson Jr. on Thursday denied a request by 16 sports flooring distributors to block Connor Sport Court International LLC from terminating their contracts, finding the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate they likely succeeded on the merits of their breach-of-contract claims.
The distributors, who operate under the Sport Court brand, alleged that Connor Sport Court and its parent company, Gerflor USA Inc., violated antitrust laws and breached contracts by terminating their exclusive distributorships.
The plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to reinstate their contracts and prevent further terminations while the litigation proceeds.
Nielson ruled that the distributors failed to show they were likely to establish they had substantially performed their contractual obligations, a prerequisite for a breach-of-contract claim under Utah law.
The dispute centers on a series of letters sent by Connor Sport Court on June 27, 2025, which cited breaches of confidentiality agreements and failure to meet performance requirements.
The letters gave the distributors 60 days to cure the alleged breaches, including a requirement to schedule and complete a meeting with Ryan Day, Connor Sport Court’s managing director, to discuss performance shortfalls.
Instead of attending the scheduled individual meetings, the distributors’ counsel sent a letter on July 3, 2025, canceling the meetings and demanding a collective meeting with Gerflor and Connor Sport Court.
Nielson wrote that the July 3 letter likely constituted an "anticipatory breach" under Utah law, citing precedent that such a breach occurs when a party "manifests a positive and unequivocal intent not to render its promised performance."
The judge noted that the plaintiffs offered no justification for canceling the meetings and identified nothing in their individual contracts that required a collective meeting.
Even if the distributors were justified in refusing to provide confidential business information in later demands, that did not excuse the earlier cancellation of the scheduled meetings, Nielson wrote.
The court concluded that the distributors failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their breach-of-contract claims, rendering the request for preliminary injunctive relief unwarranted.
The distributors had also alleged violations of the Lanham Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act, but the court denied the preliminary relief without addressing those claims or other preliminary injunction factors.
The terminated distributors argued that Connor Sport Court breached its contracts by terminating them without cause and sought to reinstate their access to the dealer portal for the pendency of the litigation.
Nielson’s order was dated March 18, 2026, and the decision was issued on May 14, 2026.
The plaintiffs have not yet indicated whether they plan to appeal the denial of preliminary relief or proceed with the merits of their antitrust and contract claims.