Select Energy Services LLC v. Lebel
ORDER directing pltf to inform the Court on or before 5/4/12, whether it desires that a hearing be set on its motion for preliminary injunction or whether this action may proceed to a trial on the merits and its motion be denied as moot. Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 4/25/12. (vjt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
SELECT ENERGY SERVICES, LLC,
Select Energy Services, LLC (Select Energy), a corporation engaged in the water transfer
industry in the Fayetteville Shale, brings this action seeking a temporary and permanent
injunction against its former employee, Michael Lebel, alleging that Lebel is violating a 2011
Confidentiality, Non-Competition, and Non-Solicitation Agreement (2011 Agreement) he signed
with Select Energy by working for one of its competitors in the Fayetteville Shale, Rain for Rent.
Select Energy filed this action by way of a Verified Complaint and Application for Temporary
and Permanent Injunction in the Circuit Court of Faulkner County, Arkansas, but it was removed
to this Court by Lebel on March 6, 2012, pursuant to this Court’s diversity jurisdiction. Included
in the papers removed to this Court is Select Energy’s motion for temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunction [doc.#3], which the Court earlier informed the parties will be
considered solely as a motion for preliminary injunction. Lebel has responded in opposition to
Select Energy’s motion for preliminary injunction and Select Energy has filed a reply to Lebel’s
The Court originally set a hearing on Select Energy’s motion for preliminary injunction
for March 14, 2012, but it was continued at the request of Select Energy and with the consent of
Lebel due to the unavailability of one of Select Energy’s witnesses. Since then, the Court has
attempted to set Select Energy’s motion for preliminary injunction (along with other motions)
for a hearing but Select Energy and its witness have experienced difficulty with proposed
hearing dates. Given that some nine months have passed since Select Energy states it learned
Lebel was allegedly working for a competitor in violation of the 2011 Agreement, it is not clear
whether Select Energy continues to maintain a sense of urgency with respect to its request for
injunctive relief that it might once have had.1 The Court directs Select Energy to inform the
Court on or before May 4, 2012, whether it desires that a hearing be set on its motion for
preliminary injunction or whether this action may simply proceed to a trial on the merits and its
motion for preliminary injunction denied as moot. If Select Energy does desire a hearing on its
motion for preliminary injunction, the Court directs that it consult with the Court’s courtroom
deputy–Cecilia Norwood–about proposed hearing dates.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of April 2012.
/s/Susan Webber Wright
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On May 12, 2011, a little over two months after Lebel became an employee of Select Energy
and signed the 2011 Agreement, Select Energy terminated Lebel’s employment. On June 6, 2011, Lebel
was hired by Rain for Rent. Like Select Energy, Rain for Rent is engaged in the water transfer industry
and provides water-related products and services associated with natural gas extraction and production in
the Fayetteville Shale. Select Energy states that Rain for Rent is one of its direct competitors in the
Fayetteville Shale. Select Energy states that in July 2011, it learned that Lebel was working for Rain for
Rent. Select Energy states that Lebel’s working for Rain for Rent is in violation of the 2011 Agreement
and that Lebel has refused to cease providing competitive services for Rain for Rent. On February 8,
2012, some seven months after Select Energy states it learned Lebel was working for Rain for Rent,
Select Energy filed its Verified Complaint and Application for Temporary and Permanent Injunction in
state court after which it was removed to this Court.
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?