Where a plaintiff has moved for a preliminary injunction against a defendant former employee, that request should be denied because the plaintiff has not met its burden establishing a likelihood of success on the merits of a claim that the defendant violated the non-solicitation provision of her employment agreement.
“Plaintiff Parexel International LLC (‘Parexel’) moves for a preliminary injunction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. … Parexel seeks to prevent the irreparable harm it alleges that Defendants Signant Health Holding Corp., Signant Health LLC, Signant Health Global LLC, (together ‘Signant’), Ruben Ceballos, and Katherine Trainor are causing to their business. …
“Plaintiff asserts that they have a likelihood of success on their claims that (1) Ceballos and Trainor breached their contracts; (2) that Signant tortiously interfered with Ceballos’ [key employee agreement (KEA)] and Trainor’s KEA; (3) and that Defendants violated the Defend Trade Secrets Act (‘DTSA’), 18 U.S.C. §1836 et seq., and the Massachusetts Uniform Trade Secrets Act (‘MUTSA’), Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93, §42 et seq. …
“Trainor’s contract requires that, for the 12 months that follow her termination, she may not ‘directly or indirectly, solicit, hire, offer employment to, or in any manner encourage employees of the Company to leave employment with Parexel or otherwise violate their obligations to the Company.’ … Parexel argues that Trainor violated her agreement by...
Last month, the DOJ issued a memorandum announcing its priorities for the newly-created National Fraud Enforcement Division (“Fraud Division”), signaling the administration’s intent to create a sin...