Firehawk Aerospace, the Dallas-based defense contractor known for 3D-printed rocket propellant, is tied up in two active lawsuits: an investor case filed against it by Harlow Aerospace Fund I in Dallas County district court, and a federal trade secrets case Firehawk itself filed against a former employee, Jolene Jones, in the Northern District of Texas. Both remained open as of the most recent docket activity in late 2025.
The Harlow Aerospace Fund Investor Case
Harlow Aerospace Fund I, LP sued Firehawk and other defendants in April 2024 in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas. The matter, case number DC-24-05802, sits in the 192nd Judicial District before Judge Maria Aceves.1Trellis.law. Unopposed Motion for Entry of Agreed Scheduling Order
The fund is managed by Harlow Capital Management LLC, wholly owned by Colby Harlow, who makes all investment decisions for the firm. The fund filed with the SEC in December 2020, listing seven investors, a total amount sold of $1 million, and a minimum investment of $250,000.2Radient Analytics. Harlow Capital Management LLC
The specific claims are not laid out in the publicly available records. What the docket does show is that both sides jointly extended the schedule: in October 2024 the plaintiff filed an unopposed motion asking for roughly 90 additional days of discovery and a corresponding push of the trial date, which had originally been set for July 14, 2025.1Trellis.law. Unopposed Motion for Entry of Agreed Scheduling Order
The Trade Secrets Case Against Jolene Jones
Firehawk filed suit against Jolene Jones in 2025 in the Northern District of Texas under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, seeking injunctive relief. The case is before U.S. District Judge Brantley Starr.3CourtListener. Firehawk Aerospace Inc v. Jones Jones worked at the company as an office and operations manager from June 2023 to April 2024.
What Firehawk Alleged
Firehawk alleged that after her departure, Jones “solicited and manipulated” another employee, Pablo Gonzalez, into disclosing trade secret information, and that Jones “openly admitted to privately and publicly disseminating all or some portions” of what she obtained from him. Gonzalez was fired. The company also acknowledged that Gonzalez admitted “a lot” of what he told Jones was “incorrect or completely false.”4Justia. Firehawk Aerospace Inc v. Jones
The First Restraining Order Was Denied
Firehawk’s opening move was an application for a temporary restraining order. Judge Starr denied it on April 29, 2025, finding that Firehawk had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits. The judge pointed to a specific gap: the company never explained the independent economic value of the allegedly stolen information, which is a required element of any trade secret claim. The only harm Firehawk identified was the cost of firing and replacing Gonzalez, and the court found that insufficient to demonstrate the information itself had the kind of value trade secret law protects.4Justia. Firehawk Aerospace Inc v. Jones
A Later TRO and Preliminary Injunction Were Granted
The case turned in May. The court granted a temporary restraining order on May 8, 2025, and a preliminary injunction on May 16, prohibiting Jones from “harassing any Firehawk employees, officers, or investors.” The preliminary injunction incorporated the terms of the earlier TRO.3CourtListener. Firehawk Aerospace Inc v. Jones5Midpage. Firehawk Aerospace Inc v. Jones
Jones’s Motion to Dismiss and Request for Sanctions
Jones moved to dismiss on two grounds. She argued she had not been properly served under international service conventions, and she asked the court to sanction Firehawk and its counsel, contending the lawsuit was retaliatory and that the company knew she lacked stable housing.6GovInfo. Firehawk Aerospace Inc v. Jones, Memorandum Opinion and Order
Judge Starr denied both requests on July 16, 2025. On service, the court held that the international service rules do not apply when the defendant’s address is unknown, and Jones herself had told Firehawk’s counsel that she did not have a permanent address and that her housing was unstable. On sanctions, the court found Jones had not shown the lawsuit was retaliatory and that suing someone who lacks stable housing is not, on its own, sanctionable.6GovInfo. Firehawk Aerospace Inc v. Jones, Memorandum Opinion and Order
The Contempt Motion Over Social Media Posts
Firehawk moved for contempt in June 2025, arguing Jones had violated the injunction’s anti-harassment provision. The company pointed to a social media post in which Jones said she would “burn down” the home of anyone who “crosses” her, and a video from a gun store in which she was “rambling and using the word ‘kill.'”7GovInfo. Firehawk Aerospace Inc v. Jones, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Contempt
The court denied the motion on August 21, 2025. Judge Starr ruled that neither statement was a “true threat” under the First Amendment, characterizing them as “hyperbole” and finding that an objectively reasonable person would not read them as serious expressions of intent to cause harm. The court described the posts as “off-putting and strange” but held that strangeness is not the same as a threat. Statements Jones allegedly made about the wife of a Firehawk associate fell outside the injunction, which by its terms covered only employees, officers, or investors.7GovInfo. Firehawk Aerospace Inc v. Jones, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Contempt
Where the Case Stands Now
Jones filed an answer to Firehawk’s amended complaint in September 2025, and the court issued scheduling orders in October 2025. The last docket activity was recorded on October 23, 2025, with the case ongoing.3CourtListener. Firehawk Aerospace Inc v. Jones