Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Wood, No. 09-1526

By FindLaw Staff on January 15, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

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).     

Read Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Wood, No. 09-1526

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania

Opinion Filed January 15, 2010


Before: Smith, Fisher, and Stapleton, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Circuit Judge Fisher


For Appellant:  Patrick Sorek, Leech Tishman Fuscaldo & Lampl

For Appellee:   Mark A. Willard, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

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.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard