Product Action International, Inc. v. Mero

277 F. Supp. 2d 919 (2003)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P moved for a preliminary injunction, and the parties agreed that the court should first decide as a matter of law the enforceability of the covenant not to compete. D was employed by P as a Regional Sales Manager from April 22, 2002, through February 6, 2003, when P fired him. P and D entered into a Confidentiality/Non-Competition Agreement dated April 22, 2002, and drafted by P. For a period of twenty-four (24) months immediately following the termination of the Agreement D shall not, directly or indirectly, in any individual or representative capacity, own, organize, initiate, accept employment with, engage with, participate with, consult with or assist a 'Competitive Business' in any way. A 'Competitive Business' means any individual, company, entity, or business that is engaged in providing quality control assistance or services to manufacturers, and does business with, or seeks to do business with, any Present Customer of P, or does business in or seeks to do business within an one hundred (100) mile radius of any warehouse, office or facility where P does business, or during the twelve (12) months immediately preceding did business in any state of the United States or in any foreign country in which P does business or is planning to do business at the time D leaves P. On February 24, 2003, D became employed as a salesman by Quality Industrial Services, Inc. QIS and P both perform quality assurance and quality control inspection work for the automotive industry. QIS qualifies as a 'Competitive Business' under the non-competition agreement and punches all three of the additional prohibitions in the agreement. P has warehouses in Plymouth, Michigan; Marysville, Ohio; Tuscaloosa, Alabama; and Indianapolis, Indiana. P has offices in: Battle Creek, Holland, Princeton, and Plymouth, Michigan; Indianapolis and Mishawaka, Indiana; Toledo and Dayton, Ohio; Georgetown, Kentucky; Vance, Huntsville, and Lincoln, Alabama; Nashville, Tennessee; and Greenville, South Carolina. In addition, PAI does business in warehouses, offices or facilities belonging to customers, including locations in Chicago, Illinois; the state of Wisconsin; Canton, Mississippi; and Windsor and St. Catherine, Ontario, Canada. While working for QIS, D has called on six of the same customers that he called upon while working for P. Both parties moved for summary judgment.