Construction Materials, Inc. v. Hatcher et al (JOINT ASSIGN)(MAG+)
Filing
7
CONSENT ORDER granting 2 MOTION to the following extent only: (1) The Court held a telephonic hearing in this matter on April 16, 2015; (2) The Court finds that it has jurisdiction over this matter and the parties; Defs Christopher M. Hat cher and his current employer, HD Supply Construction Supply, Ltd. d/b/a White Cap Construction Supply, incorrectly named in the Complaint, have appeared and, through counsel, consented to the Court's jurisdiction over them and this matter ; (3) Until the date set for a hearing on Plfs Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief, or until ordered otherwise : (a) Hatcher will not engage in any activities that compete with Construction Materials, Inc., as further set out in order; (b) Hat cher will not call on any customer with whom he did business while employed at CMI, as further set out in order; (4) CMI is permitted to send this order to any of the customers on the submitted list; (5) Except as to the finding of jurisdiction, n othing in this Order will be construed as an admission by any party, and the Court recognizes that this Order does not serve as a waiver of any argument or objection by any party, including Plf's right to seek any remedy identified in the Complaint, nor does it bind the Court as to future rulings in this matter. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 4/16/15. (djy, ) Modified on 4/16/2015 to clarify text to reflect as stated in order (qc/djy, ).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHRISTOPHER M. HATCHER, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CV:2:15-cv-245-MHT-CSC
(WO)
CONSENT ORDER GRANTING TEMPORARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Having come before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
and Preliminary Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 2), and with the parties’ consent, it is hereby
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that said motion is granted to the following extent only:
1.
The Court held a telephonic hearing in this matter on April 16, 2015.
2.
The Court finds that it has jurisdiction over this matter and the parties. Defendants
Christopher M. Hatcher (“Hatcher”) and his current employer, HD Supply Construction Supply,
Ltd. d/b/a White Cap Construction Supply (“White Cap”), incorrectly named in the Complaint,
have appeared and, through counsel, consented to the Court’s jurisdiction over them and this
matter.
3.
Until the date set for a hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunctive
Relief, or until ordered otherwise:
(a)
Hatcher will not engage in any activities that compete with Construction
Materials, Inc. (“CMI”), including assisting directly or indirectly any employee of White Cap or
its affiliates, in the Sales Territory described in the Employment Agreement between CMI and
Hatcher;
(b)
Hatcher will not call on any customer with whom he did business while
employed at CMI, regardless of the location of such customer. CMI is directed to submit a list of
such customers to Hatcher and White Cap within five days of the entry of the order, using CMI’s
business records reflecting sales on which Hatcher was paid a commission while employed as an
outside salesman at CMI. Upon request, CMI is directed to provide supporting records for review
by counsel to Hatcher and White Cap that demonstrate the payment of commissions as to any
such customer. In the event Hatcher is contacted by any such customer after such list has been
provided, he will respond as follows: “I am prohibited by an employment agreement with my
prior employer from doing business with you.” Hatcher will not reference or suggest that anyone
at White Cap (or its affiliates) can assist such customer. If asked any other question, Hatcher will
say, “I am not able to respond further.”
4.
CMI is permitted to send this order to any of the customers on the submitted list.
5.
Except as to the finding of jurisdiction, nothing in this Order will be construed as
an admission by any party, and the Court recognizes that this Order does not serve as a waiver of
any argument or objection by any party, including Plaintiff’s right to seek any remedy identified
in the Complaint, nor does it bind the Court as to future rulings in this matter.
DONE, this the 16th day of April, 2015.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson___
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?