Tag Archives: Injunction

Can Filing for Bankruptcy Invalidate a Noncompete?

August 9, 2018 By in Noncompete Tags: , , , , Leave a comment

Guest post by Solomon B. Genet.

Debtors and their lawyers sometimes use a bankruptcy filing as an offensive tool. In a recent case, a debtor tried to use his prior bankruptcy to shed his non-compete obligations. While this attempt was not successful, non-compete practitioners should be aware of this effort.

In In re Capps, a July 26, 2018 decision from the District of Kansas Bankruptcy Court, the individual debtor sold his company and signed an employment agreement with the buyer, agreeing to a series of non-compete, non-solicit and confidentiality obligations. The debtor later filed for bankruptcy, and the buyer fired him soon thereafter.  The buyer then discovered that the debtor was breaching his restrictive covenants and brought an action for declaratory relief in the bankruptcy court seeking a finding that the bankruptcy process and discharge did not relieve him of these obligations.

Bankruptcy Judge Nugent agreed with the plaintiff-buyer and rejected the debtor’s arguments, reasoning that: (1) the debtor’s breaches of the restrictive covenants occurred post-bankruptcy, and gave rise to “equitable” (i.e., injunctive) relief and not “a right to payment,” so the debtor did not discharge any debts arising from the agreements; and (2) the restrictive covenants were not “executory” contracts (material obligations on both sides), and therefore could not be rejected through the bankruptcy process.

The Capps debtor was unsuccessful in shedding his obligations.  But—hypothetically—a strategic legal counselor could use the Capps debtor’s arguments in a case with more favorable facts (and perhaps different applicable law) to assist a person subject to a non-compete to obtain relief long before his contracted time-period for his non-compete obligations expired.

A copy of the opinion can be downloaded here.

Florida’s Restrictive Covenant Statute: The Power of Presumption

March 16, 2017 By in Case Summary, Florida Non-Compete Lawyer, Noncompete, Trade secrets, Uncategorized Tags: , , Leave a comment

Florida has one of the most employer-friendly restrictive-covenant statutes in the country, Section 542.335, Fla. Stat. For example, the statute prohibits judges from considering any hardship suffered by the person against whom enforcement is sought. The statute also contains a rebuttable presumption that a violation of an enforceable restrictive covenant creates irreparable injury. Yesterday, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal (which covers Miami-Dade County) issued an opinion showing the power of this presumption. The opinion, in Allied Universal Corp. v. Given, can be downloaded here.

Allied manufactures and distributes water-treatment chemicals. Defendant Given worked as a regional sales manger for Allied and signed a non-compete agreement. As part of his employment, he received training regarding various aspects of Allied’s business. Given resigned from Allied to work for Univar, a company that competes with Allied. Allied filed suit and sought a temporary injunction, which the trial court denied on the grounds that Allied failed to show irreparable harm.

The appellate court focused on the rebuttable presumption of irreparable injury and described the evidence offered by Allied:

At the evidentiary hearing on the motion for temporary injunction, Allied presented unrebutted evidence of the existence of statutorily legitimate business interests to be protected and evidence that Given had substantial relationships with specific prospective or existing Allied customers. Allied’s president, Mr. Palmer, testified that his company had trained Given, over the course of Given’s six-year employment, in its manufacturing and production techniques, marketing strategies, and confidential pricing strategies. In addition, Given had knowledge of existing and prospective customers, and had been sent to several trade meetings to cultivate these contacts.

Thus, the court concluded that Allied had successfully shifted the burden to Given to establish the absence of irreparable injury. But Given “failed to present any such evidence.”

Interestingly, Given argued that because he had not yet begun actively working for Univar, he had not breached the noncompete and no damages were incurred. But he admitted that if he were not enjoined, he would start working for Univar. The court rejected this argument, noting that “the only focus at the preliminary injunction stage is to maintain longstanding relationships and preserve the company’s goodwill.” In the future, plaintiffs can use this language to highlight the need to maintain the status quo.

Given Florida’s employer-friendly restrictive-covenant statute, noncompete and related agreements are powerful tools for Florida companies seeking to protect trade secrets and proprietary information. Cases like Allied show how this statute makes it easier for an employer to obtain an injunction prohibiting violations of a restrictive covenant.

Federal Court Denies Expedited Discovery In Defend Trade Secret Act Case

February 28, 2017 By in Advice, Case Summary, Defend Trade Secrets Act, Florida Non-Compete Lawyer, Trade secrets, Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Trade-secret-misappropriation cases can move fast. Often, the plaintiff files a motion for temporary restraining order alongside its complaint. Sometimes, the plaintiff has enough evidence already to justify a TRO. Other times, the plaintiff needs to take discovery before the TRO hearing.

But the typical discovery deadlines in the rules of civil procedure are not well suited for these TRO proceedings. Thus, plaintiffs regularly seek expedited discovery. In my experience, the parties are often able to agree to an expedited discovery schedule, since defendants usually want to take discovery as well. But when the parties cannot agree, the court needs to get involved. A recent case out of the Middle District of Florida shows the importance of narrowly tailoring expedited discovery requests, particularly when asking a judge to permit this type of discovery.

In Digital Assurance Certification, LLC v. Pendolino, the plaintiff works with municipal bond issuers to comply with various SEC regulations. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant, a former employee, left to work for a competitor. And in his final week of work, according to the plaintiff, the defendant used a USB drive to access every document on the plaintiff’s shared drive. Thus, the plaintiff brought claims for violations of the Defend Trade Secret Act and the Florida Uniform Trade Secrets Act, among others, and filed a motion for a TRO.

In advance of the TRO hearing, the plaintiff filed a motion for expedited discovery. The court denied the motion. A copy of the order can be downloaded below.

The court first set forth the standard for determining whether the plaintiff had demonstrated good cause for expedited discovery:

Factors the Court considers in deciding whether a party has shown good cause include: (1) whether a motion for preliminary injunction is pending; (2) the breadth of the requested discovery; (3) the reason(s) for requesting expedited discovery; (4) the burden on the opponent to comply with the request for discovery; and (5) how far in advance of the typical discovery process the request is made.

Here, the court focused on the second factor, the breadth of the plaintiff’s requests. The court took issue with the scope of the plaintiff’s requests, noting that “while these matters may be relevant to the issues raised in DAC’s complaint, they go far beyond what is needed for the hearing on the motion for a temporary restraining order.”

Take away: When bringing a motion for a TRO, the plaintiff’s lawyers need to figure out quickly whether the parties will be able to agree to an expedited discovery schedule. If not, the plaintiff needs to draft discovery requests that are laser focused on the issues relevant to the TRO hearing. In my experience, judges will allow this type of discovery, as long as the requests are reasonable. Conversely, judges will protect defendants from overbroad discovery.

Digital Assurance Certification, LLC v. Pendolino

Florida Loves Non-Compete Agreements

December 3, 2015 By in Advice, Case Summary, Noncompete, Trade secrets, Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Florida’s restrictive-covenant statute, Section 542.335, is one of the most employer-friendly in the country. A recent case from Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal, Transunion Risk and Alternative Data Solutions, Inc. v. Reilly, shows how this statute favors an employer trying to enforce a restrictive covenant against a former employee. A copy of the opinion can be downloaded below.

This opinion is short on facts, but the plaintiff sued the defendant for violating a non-compete agreement and sought a temporary injunction. At the injunction hearing, the trial court ruled in the defendant’s favor after the plaintiff finished its case in chief, before the defendant put on any evidence.

The appellate court reversed. First, it looked at the likelihood of irreparable injury, citing the statute’s presumption of irreparable injury that arises when the plaintiff shows a violation of an enforceable restrictive covenant. Here, the appellate court reversed because the defendant did not present evidence:

As the trial court’s ruling was issued before Reilly presented any evidence, Reilly could not have met his burden of presenting evidence overcoming the presumption.

This doesn’t sound right. A defendant should have the right to rebut this presumption simply by cross-examining the plaintiff’s witnesses. That’s what the trial court apparently thought happened here. But the presumption so strongly favors the plaintiff that this appellate court was unwilling to allow the defendant to rebut it without putting on affirmative evidence.

The trial court also concluded that the plaintiff had an adequate remedy at law. But the appellate court reversed this finding, noting that even when a plaintiff has suffered actual money damages,

the continued breach of a non-compete agreement threatens a former employer’s goodwill and relationships with its customers, and nothing short of an injunction would prevent this loss.

This finding essentially eliminates the adequate-remedy-at-law prong of the injunction analysis in restrictive-covenant cases.

Finally, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s finding that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. On this point, the appellate court relied on the trial court’s “implied finding” that the defendant violated a restrictive covenant. So once a court finds that the defendant breached, the plaintiff has automatically shown a substantial likelihood of success.

This case shows how Florida’s restrictive-covenant statute provides employers with the upper hand in litigation. As a result, these agreements are a very effective tool for protecting proprietary information and trade secrets. All Florida companies should consult with an attorney to determine whether to implement these types of agreements.

Transunion Risk and Alternative Data Solutions, Inc. v. Reilly

Novel Legal Strategy Deflates Employer’s Trade-Secrets Case

April 24, 2014 By in Case Summary, Noncompete, Trade secrets Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Recently, in Putters v. Rmax Operating, LLC, 2014 WL 1466902 (N.D. Ga. April 15, 2014) (opinion linked below), the court dismissed a counterclaim for trade-secrets misappropriation, brought in response to a declaratory judgment action filed by the defendant’s former employee. When I first read this opinion, I thought that the defendant did not move fast enough, thereby allowing the plaintiff to select the forum. When I dug further, however, I found out I was wrong.

In this case, the defendant is a Texas company that manufacturers insulation materials. The plaintiff worked for the defendant for 26 years in Georgia as a sales manager, and had access to the defendant’s confidential information. After the plaintiff left the defendant to work for a competitor, the defendant discovered that the plaintiff “had downloaded documents containing proprietary and confidential information to an external hard drive.”

While not clear from this opinion, the complaint gives the back story. A copy is linked below. The defendant originally filed suit in Texas state court and obtained an ex parte temporary restraining order prohibiting the plaintiff from working for his new employer.

After that, the plaintiff made an interesting legal maneuver. He filed this lawsuit in Georgia state court, seeking a declaration that he is permitted to continue working for his new employer, and an injunction prohibiting the defendant from prosecuting the Texas action, since Texas courts did not have personal jurisdiction over him.

This maneuver worked. The case (after being removed to federal court) is proceeding in Georgia federal court, where the court dismissed the defendant’s counterclaim and denied the defendant’s request for a TRO.

Normally, when a defendant believes that there is no personal jurisdiction over him, he will simply litigate that issue in front of the court where the plaintiff filed the lawsuit. Here, the employee took an entirely different course and successfully redirected the litigation to a different forum. And he was able to get the case in front of a judge with much more favorable views of his case.

Takeaway: Companies should be wary of personal-jurisdiction issues when filing trade-secrets lawsuits. The last thing you want is to be bogged down in a personal jurisdiction fight before the court will even hear a temporary injunction motion. Or, even worse, you could end up like the employer in this case, who spent time and money getting a TRO, only to be whisked away to a Georgia court with a very different view of the employer’s arguments.

Also, had this company simply had its employees sign restrictive covenants (including a venue and jurisdiction clause), they would be in a far better legal position.

Order

Complaint

Trade-Secrets Trial Post-Mortem

December 6, 2013 By in Noncompete, Trade secrets Tags: , , , , , , , 5 Comments

Several months ago, I tried a trade-secrets case in front of a jury and obtained a liability verdict in my client’s favor. This week, the case settled in advance of Monday’s scheduled damages trial. (Thus explaining the shortage of posts lately; I’ve been preparing for trial.) Now that it has settled, I’m going to write a series of posts about this case, since it illustrates how companies can better protect their proprietary information and the consequences of failing to do so.

My client provides services to hotels and is the largest company in its industry within its geographic market. After its sales director quit, my client found out that for at least the prior two years, he had been secretly setting up a competing company. Shortly thereafter, the sales director’s new company took my client’s largest and most important client. Since then, his company has become our largest competitor.

While we had a compelling story, we also had some problems. In particular, the sales director was not subject to a noncompete agreement. And we had limited direct evidence that his company was using my client’s proprietary information. But there was plenty of circumstantial evidence.

We sued for violations of Florida’s Trade Secrets Act, tortious interference with business relationships, and violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. From the outset, we knew we would have difficulty proving misappropriation of trade secrets, though we certainly had a good-faith basis for bringing that claim. Since there was no noncompete and we had limited hard evidence, we were hesitant to seek a temporary injunction. Instead, we proceeded with discovery. Because civil cases in Florida state court proceed slowly, it took four years between complaint and verdict.

At trial, the court directed a verdict against my client on the Trade Secrets Act claim, but allowed the tortious interference and deceptive-and-unfair-trade-practices claim to go to the jury. They took less than an hour to enter their verdict in our favor.

Had my client simply required its key employees to sign noncompete agreements, this case would have ended much earlier. We would have immediately moved for, and likely won, injunctive relief. In fact, with a noncompete, I believe the defendant never would have tried to open a competing company (he was being paid handsomely by my client). Instead, my client lost significant business, and had to suffer through and pay for years of litigation. While the ultimate result was very favorable for them, no company wants to endure this type of process.

So the critical lesson from this case, as has been repeated often in these pages, is that companies need to have their key employees sign restrictive covenants, including noncompte and nonsolicitation agreements.

In future posts, I’ll discuss some unique aspects of this case, including how we used a consumer-protection statute to get around the lack of a noncompete, and why we were unable to prove our misappropriation claim. I’ll also talk about how we were able to use a bifurcated liability and damages trial to our advantage.

Trade Secret Injunctions Are Not Automatic — Beware of Equitable Defenses

November 20, 2013 By in Advice, Noncompete, Trade secrets Tags: , , , , , 1 Comment

Companies bringing lawsuits based on a noncompete or misappropriation of trade secrets routinely seek an injunction. For example, a former employer seeking to enforce a noncompete will often ask the court to block the former employee from working for a competitor.

Because an injunction is an equitable remedy—as opposed to a legal remedy, such as seeking money damages—the defendant is permitted to raise certain equitable defenses not available when the plaintiff is solely seeking money damages. This includes the defense of unclean hands, under which a plaintiff is not entitled to equitable relief—like an injunction—if it has acted inequitably or in bad faith. (Important point: these defenses can vary from state to state.)

So if the former employee can convince the court that the former employer acted inequitably, the injunction motion is likely to be denied. As part of their equitable defenses, defendants often argue that they were coerced into signing a noncompete, or that the former employer did not mention the noncompete until after the former employee had quit his prior job.

While it’s impossible to prevent a defendant from lobbing unfounded accusations, employers can take steps as part of the hiring process to circumvent these equitable defenses.

If an employer is going to require a noncompete or other restrictive covenant, inform prospective employees early in the hiring process. If there is a job posting, consider including this requirement. Of course, the employer needs to balance the risk of deterring applicants with the risk of increased difficulty obtaining an injunction. Consider giving prospective employees a handout at the initial interview describing the position and disclosing that any job offer will be subject to signing restrictive covenants. Certainly, any offer letter should make clear that it is subject to the employee entering into all required restrictive covenants.

Too often, companies assume that their restrictive covenants will automatically protect them, without thinking proactively about making sure that they are putting themselves in the best position to enforce these agreements down the road. Taking these simple steps can make a big difference if it becomes necessary to litigate.

%d bloggers like this: