Where a defendant has asserted a counterclaim requesting preliminary injunctive relief against two former employees who signed restrictive covenants while employed by the defendant, the defendant’s motion for a preliminary injunction should be allowed in part and denied in part, as the language of the order the defendant has proposed is overbroad.
“In case No. 23-2141, Grafton & Upton Railroad Company (‘GURR’ or ‘GU’), in its capacity as plaintiff-in-counterclaim and in reliance on its verified counterclaim, moves for preliminary injunctive relief against Plaintiffs Michael Milanoski and John DeWaele, former GURR employees, who signed restrictive covenants while employed by GURR that purport to prevent them from, among other things, competing with GURR, using its confidential information, or soliciting or encouraging its employees to leave or diminish their employment with GURR. …
“… Plaintiffs argue that Synagro/EPIC is not within the scope of the non-competition provisions. The Court disagrees, although it concludes the language of the order GURR has proposed is overbroad. …
“The issue in this case is whether point one of the injunction sought by GURR properly protects its goodwill consistent with the principles reflected in Automile [Holdings, LLC v. McGovern, 483 Mass. 797 (2020)]. …
“… The record shows that Plaintiffs have taken a specific business opportunity with Synagro/EPIC from GURR that DeWaele had been negotiating for GURR with Synagro/EPIC. The analysis...
PHOTOS: COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION OF SINGAPORE SINGAPORE – Three online retailers have been caught using misleading features to influence shoppers by Singapore’s consumer and competition...