United Rentals, Inc. et al v. Sleyko
Filing
25
ORDER GRANTING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. For the reasons stated in the attached ruling, the Court now enters the following temporary restraining order to remain in effect until a preliminary injunction hearing and without prejudice to reconsiderat ion in the event of any changed circumstances. Defendant Joseph Sleyko is enjoined and temporarily restrained from:(a) Soliciting or accepting the business of, or calling upon, any person or entity who is or who was an actual or prospective custo mer of United or with whom United had or pursued a business relationship at any time during the 12-month period immediately preceding the termination of Sleykos employment with United, if such communication is done for the purpose of providing or obt aining any product or service reasonably deemed competitive with any product or service then offered by United;(b) Using or disclosing Uniteds trade secrets and confidential information; and(c) Soliciting United employees or encouraging Unite d employees to leave United.The parties are requested to confer concerning scheduling for a preliminary injunction hearing and to submit a proposed schedule for any discovery and hearing by June 8, 2018.It is so ordered.Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 6/4/2018. (Lombard, N.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
UNITED RENTALS, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
No. 3:18-cv-00816 (JAM)
v.
JOSEPH SLEYKO,
Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
This is a lawsuit by an employer against a former employee to enforce a so-called “noncompete” agreement. A non-compete agreement is an agreement between an employer and an
employee that bars or limits an employee from working for a competing business if the employee
stops working for the employer. See Datto, Inc. v. Falk, 2018 WL 1307633, at *1 (D. Conn.
2018).
The plaintiffs here are two related companies, United Rentals, Inc., and United Rentals
(North America), Inc. (“United”). Both companies are incorporated in Delaware and have their
principal place of business in Stamford, Connecticut. United’s business involves the rental and
sale of equipment including diesel and electric pump systems throughout the United States.
The defendant here is Joseph Sleyko (“Sleyko”). He began working as an outside sales
representative for United about two-and-a-half years ago. Most recently, he was based out of
United’s branch in Channahon, Illinois. Sleyko’s employment with United was governed by an
employment agreement that includes certain non-compete provisions.
On May 7, 2018, Sleyko unexpectedly resigned from United in order to work for one of
United’s competitors. United has now filed this lawsuit seeking to enforce its non-compete with
Sleyko. United seeks a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) as well as a preliminary injunction.
1
United’s application for a TRO would allow Sleyko to continue to work for the competition but
it would bar him from working with any prior or prospective customers of United, from using or
disclosing any of United’s confidential information, and from soliciting or encouraging any of
United’s employees to leave United.
I declined to grant an ex parte TRO but instead ordered the parties to submit expedited
briefing. I have now reviewed the parties’ filings and conclude that a TRO should enter in
United’s favor pending a hearing and determination of United’s motion for a preliminary
injunction. See Warner Bros. Inc. v. Dae Rim Trading, Inc., 877 F.2d 1120, 1124 (2d Cir. 1989)
(noting limited purpose of temporary restraining order to preserve status quo pending
preliminary injunction hearing).
Although the factual record for a court’s consideration of a TRO is ordinarily less
developed than for a preliminary injunction, the underlying standards that govern the grant or
denial of a TRO are the same as for a preliminary injunction. See Local 1814, Intern.
Longshoremen’s Ass’n, AFL–CIO v. New York Shipping Ass’n, Inc., 965 F.2d 1224, 1228 (2d
Cir. 1992). Accordingly, United must show (1) irreparable harm, (2) either a likelihood of
success on the merits or both serious questions on the merits and a balance of hardships
decidedly favoring United, and (3) that a preliminary injunction is in the public interest. See N.
Am. Soccer League, LLC v. United States Soccer Fed’n, Inc., 883 F.3d 32, 37 (2d Cir. 2018).
It looks to me like United has made this initial showing, although I need not engage in a
factor-by-factor analysis, because Sleyko does not oppose United’s request for a TRO except to
the extent that it would bar Sleyko’s dealings with about 180 customers or other companies with
whom he asserts he had a prior business relationship before beginning his employment with
United. I don’t agree with this proposed limitation for substantially the reasons explained by
2
United. Most significantly, the parties’ non-compete agreement does not admit of any exception
for customers whose relationship with Sleyko happened to pre-date his employment with United.
Accordingly, I now enter the following temporary restraining order to remain in effect
until a preliminary injunction hearing and without prejudice to reconsideration in the event of
any changed circumstances. Defendant Joseph Sleyko is enjoined and temporarily restrained
from:
(a) Soliciting or accepting the business of, or calling upon, any person or entity who is or
who was an actual or prospective customer of United or with whom United had or
pursued a business relationship at any time during the 12-month period immediately
preceding the termination of Sleyko’s employment with United, if such
communication is done for the purpose of providing or obtaining any product or
service reasonably deemed competitive with any product or service then offered by
United;
(b) Using or disclosing United’s trade secrets and confidential information; and
(c) Soliciting United employees or encouraging United employees to leave United.
The parties are requested to confer concerning scheduling for a preliminary injunction
hearing and to submit a proposed schedule for any discovery and hearing by June 8, 2018.
It is so ordered.
Dated at New Haven this 4th day of June 2018.
/s/ Jeffrey Alker Meyer
Jeffrey Alker Meyer
United States District Judge
3
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?