Construction Materials, Inc. v. Hatcher et al (JOINT ASSIGN)(MAG+)

Filing 8

AMENDED CONSENT ORDER granting 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order 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 pa rties; Defs Christopher M. Hatcher 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 o ver 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 se t out in order; (b) Hatcher 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 findin g 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 Plf's right to seek any remedy identified in the Complaint, nor does it bind the Court as to future rulings in this matter; the 2 motion for preliminary injunction is still pending. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 4/16/15. (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)

AMENDED 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 for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 2) 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.
The motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 2) is still pending.
DONE, this the 16th day of April, 2015.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson___
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE