Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
In plaintiff's action against its former employee and his new employer to enforce the terms of the restrictive covenant not to compete, district court's grant of plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) defendant's new employer is a dispensable party to the action, and as such, will be dismissed under Rule 21 authority to restore complete diversity; 2) plaintiff, as the same corporate entity that entered into the 2005 Agreement with defendant, may now seek to enforce that agreement against him as its 2007 corporate restructuring was a stock sale rather than an asset purchase and there was no need for an assignment of the non-compete provision; 3) district court did not err in holding that plaintiff had a legitimate business interest in its customer goodwill and defendant's specialized training and skills as a pyrotechnician; and 4) a grant of preliminary injunction is vacated for failure to comply with the bond requirements of Rule 65(c).
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
Opinion Filed January 15, 2010
Opinion by Circuit Judge Fisher
For Appellant: Patrick Sorek, Leech Tishman Fuscaldo & Lampl
For Appellee: Mark A. Willard, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott
Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.