These four criteria, however, "are not to be applied woodenly or in isolation from each other rather, the court of equity should weigh all of these factors together in determining whether injunctive relief is proper." Dep't of Envtl. 1 3 will not be adversely affected by granting the injunction." Ingraham v. STANDARD OF REVIEW In order to succeed on a motion for a temporary restraining order, the moving party has the burden of demonstrating the following: "(1) that plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted, (2) that such injury outweighs any harm which granting the injunctive relief would inflict on the defendant, (3) that plaintiff has exhibited a likelihood of success on the merits (at most, a probability at least, a substantial possibility), (4) that the public interest By XWave's estimate, unrebutted by Defendants, nineteen of Downeast's twenty-nine clients are former XWave clients. ยง 1542, (Counts IV & V), and tortious interference with advantageous relations (Counts VI & VII). XWave brought suit against Defendants by a complaint filed Janurequesting preliminary and permanent injunctive relief (Count 0 for Defendants' actions allegedly constituting a breach of contract (Counts II & 110, misappropriation of trade secrets under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, 10 M.R.S.A. Defendants did not respond to these letters. Follow-up letters of a similar nature were sent to Defendants' attorney later in the year. In response, Xwave mailed letters to Defendants on reminding them of their obligations under the Agreement. 1 At some point in early 2006, XWave became aware that Downeast was servicing former XWave clients. In fact, a majority of Downeast's clients are former XWave clients. Further, many of these former XWave clients now use Downeast for their network servicing needs. Following Defendants' departure, a significant number of XWave clients either ceased using XWave's services entirely or cut back on their use. Pratt also resigned from XWave 2 and joined Downeast as a principal. ("Downeast"), provided similar services to those of XWave. McLean resigned from his position at XWave to start up a new business venture with another former XWave systems engineer. and any other information or procedures that are treated as secret or confidential by TechKnowledge Inc." On JanuMr. ustomer lists, customer and supplier identities. Confidential information, in turn, is defined by the Agreement as f/ll information or material that has or could have commercial value or other utility in the business in which TechKnowledge Inc. will not exceed thirty percent of the employee's starting annual salary. The compensation paid to TechKnowldge Inc. compensation for the hiring and training of a replacement employee. or pursuant of an agreement by the employee (or the employee's prospective employer) to pay TechKnowledge Inc. for one year after termination of employment without the express prior written consent of the president of TechKnowledge Inc. If employed in a regular, full-time position, the employee agrees not to solicit or accept employment from any customers or potential customers (as defined in section 4 above) of TechKnowledge Inc. and will not use any such Confidential Information to his or her benefit. and or its clients after leaving employment. The employee agrees to protect the value of the Confidential Information of TechKnowledge Inc. Obligations of Employee Regarding Confidential Information After Employment. Non-Disclosure and Non-Competition Agreement" The Agreements signed by Defendants are identical in all relevant respects and read in part as follows: 3. On the first day of their employment, each Defendant signed a document titled "Employee ("Agreement"). Each Defendant was assigned to handle the needs of specific customers. Defendants' duties while employed by XWave included providing network consulting 1 services at clients' places of business. McLean and from Octothrough Februin the case of Mr. XWave is an information technology company that employed Defendants as full-time salaried network engineers from through January 20,2006 in the case of Mr. BACKGROUND For purposes of ruling on the present motion, the facts apparent from the submissions of the parties are as follows. 65 barring Defendants Joel McLean and Michael Pratt ("Defendants") from providing their services to former XWave clients as well as barring Defendants from using confidential information obtained while employed by XWave in support of their independent business venture. JOEL MCLEAN, and MICHAEL PRATT, Defendants Before the Court is Plaintiff XWave New England Corp.'s ("XWave") motion for a temporary restraining order pursuant to M.R. 9 XWAVE NEW ENGLAND CORP.,' J Plaintiff ORDER ON MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER v. ," SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION 0CKET "E -:) 2.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |