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
Judges
Before: Smith, Fisher, and Stapleton, Circuit Judges
Opinion by Circuit Judge Fisher
Counsel:
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
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
