TP Group-CI, Inc. v. Vetecnik
Filing
27
MEMORANDUM OPINION GRANTING Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (D.I. 3 ). Plaintiff has submitted a proposed order that largely tracks the language of the restrictive covenants and is of reasonable scope. Therefore, this order will be entered as soon as Plaintiff posts the required security bond of $250,000.00. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 10/6/2016. (nms)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
TP GROUP-CI, INC.,
Plaintiff;
v.
Civil Action No. 1: 16-cv-00623-RGA
IVAN VETECNIK
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Colm F. Connolly, Esq., MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jody C.
Barillare, Esq., MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Wilmington, DE; Daniel D. Rubinstein,
Esq., WINSTON & STRAWN, LLP, Chicago, IL; William C. O'Neil, Esq., WINSTON &
STRAWN, LLP, Chicago, IL; Michael A. Skokna, Esq., WINSTON & STRAWN, LLP,
Chicago, IL.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Ivan Vetecnik, Salt Lake
October "
, 2016
Cit~Utah,
prose.
Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (D.I. 3) and
related briefing (D.I. 21, 24, 25).
For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs Motion for a
Preliminary Injunction (D.I. 3) is GRANTED.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff TP Group-CI, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.
(D.I. 1 at iflO). TP-Group is a holding company that is the sole owner of Clinical Innovations
("CI"), a company that manufactures, among other things, urinary and intrauterine catheters.
(D.I. 21 at 5). Defendant Vetecnik was employed by CI as an engineer until June 14, 2016,
when CI terminated his employment. (Id. at 7).
In January 2011, Defendant entered into a stock option agreement with CI in return for
signing non-compete and confidentiality agreements. (Id. at 7-8). The non-compete prohibits
Defendant from working for companies that "design and manufacture ... medical devices used
in the fields of women's and infant's health, urology and gastroenterology" for a period of two
years post-termination. (Id. at 8). The confidentiality agreement prohibits use or disclosure of
confidential information Defendant learned during the course of his employment. (Id. at 9).
In June 2016, CI discovered that Defendant had been working for one of Cl's former
owners on the side, using CI' s equipment to build machines to support the former owner's
competing catheter business, Biomerics. (Id. at 10). In addition, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
disclosed confidential information to the former owner. (Id.). After CI terminated Defendant, he
accepted employment at Biomerics. (D.I. 24 at 2). Defendant has since left Biomerics and is
currently unemployed. (Id. at 3).
1
I
I
I
I
II.
LEGALSTANDARD
"A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted only if (1) the
plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) denial will result in irreparable harm to the plaintiff;
(3) granting the injunction will not result in irreparable harm to the defendant; and (4) granting the
injunction is in the public interest." NutraSweet Co. v. Vit-Mar Enterprises, Inc., 176 F.3d 151,
153 (3d Cir. 1999) (internal citation omitted). Only if the movant produces evidence sufficient
that all four factors favor preliminary relief should the injunction issue. Opticians Ass 'n ofAm. v.
lndep. Opticians of Am. 920 F.2d 187, 192 (3d Cir. 1990). The present dispute involves the
enforcement of restrictive covenants. The parties agree that Delaware law governs.
III.
ANALYSIS
A.
Plaintiff Is Likely to Succeed on the Merits
Plaintiff has provided substantial evidence that Defendant has breached both the non-
compete and the confidentiality agreements. Defendant's only argument with respect to the noncompete is that he was not aware of the existence of the agreement. (D.I. 24 at 2). The law is well
settled, however, that failure to read a contract does not excuse performance. Graham v. State
Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 565 A.2d 908, 913 (Del. 1989). "A party to a contract cannot silently
accept its benefits and then object to its perceived disadvantages, nor can a party's failure to read
a contract justify its avoidance." Id.
As to the confidentiality agreement, Defendant argues that he did not violate the agreement
because he "did not learn anything new" while employed by CI and because he "was the one who
[taught CI] about the 'new' production techniques." (D.I. 24 at 3). Defendant also acknowledges,
however, that the new techniques he developed while employed by CI are Plaintiff's intellectual
property. Defendant responds to Plaintiff's evidence with only a conclusory statement that he did
2
not and would not share confidential information. (Id.). This is insufficient to rebut Plaintiff's
substantial evidence that Defendant used and shared Plaintiff's confidential information in breach
of the restrictive covenant.
Because Defendant has failed to rebut Plaintiff's substantial evidence of breaches of both
agreements, the only issue to address with respect to Plaintiff's likelihood of success is the
enforceability of the agreements. To be enforceable under Delaware law, a restrictive covenant
"must (1) meet general contract law requirements, (2) be reasonable in scope and duration, (3)
advance a legitimate economic interest of the party enforcing the covenant, and (4) survive a
balance of the equities." Tristate Courier & Carriage, Inc. v. Berryman, No. C.A. 20574-NC,
2004 WL 835886, at *10 (Del. Ch. Apr. 15, 2004).
The restrictive covenants meet the requirements of contract law because Defendant made
promises not to compete and not to reveal confidential information, and in return he received
consideration in the form of valuable stock options. Id. The restrictive covenants are reasonable
in geographic scope because the restriction is limited to Plaintiff's competitive market. Id. at * 11.
Furthermore, Delaware courts have routinely found restrictive covenants with a duration of two
years to be reasonable in duration. Weichert Co. ofPennsylvania v. Young, C.A. No. 2223-VCL,
2007 WL 4372823, at *3 (Del. Ch. Dec. 7, 2007).
Protecting a company's goodwill and
confidential information are recognized as legitimate economic interests advanced by the
restrictive covenants. Tristate Courier & Carriage, Inc., 2004 WL 835886, at *10. Finally,
Defendant's extensive knowledge of Plaintiff's confidential information would make "his
competition with plaintiffs business ... particularly effective and unfair," tipping the balance of
equities in favor of enforcement. McCann Surveyors, Inc. v. Evans, 611 A.2d 1, 4 (Del. Ch. 1987).
3
I
I
B.
Denial Will Result in Irreparable Harm to Plaintiff
Under Delaware law, "contractual stipulations as to irreparable harm alone suffice to
establish that element for the purpose of issuing preliminary injunctive relief." Cirrus Holding
Co. v. Cirrus Indus., Inc., 794 A.2d 1191, 1209 (Del. Ch. 2001). Here, the restrictive covenants
to which Defendant agreed include a stipulation that if Defendant were to breach the covenants,
CI would suffer "irreparable harm." (D.I. 22 at 15). In the same provision, Defendant agreed to
"a remedy of ... injunctive or other relief in order to enforce or prevent any violations" of the
restrictive covenants. (Id. at 16). Even without this stipulation, Plaintiff has demonstrated that
Defendant's breach has already caused harm and that further harm is likely if the covenants are
not enforced. For example, one of Cl's customers has shifted some of its business to Biomerics
and has indicated that CI might lose all of its business in the future. (D.I. 21 at 14). Therefore,
Plaintiff has adequately shown it will suffer irreparable harm unless the injunction issues.
C.
Defendant Will Not Suffer Irreparable Harm
Enforcing the agreement is unlikely to cause irreparable harm to Defendant as he will not
be enjoined for finding suitable employment. Defendant will only be restricted from working in
the very narrow "fields of women's and infant's health, urology and gastroenterology." (D.I. 21
at 23). Defendant is free to find employment as an engineer and may even work on medical devices
that are not related to these fields.
D.
The Injunction Is in the Public Interest
The public interests at issue in this case are enforcing private contracts and the rights of
employees to seek employment with any company for which they wish to work. Bimbo Bakeries
USA, Inc. v. Botticella, 613 F.3d 102, 119 (3d Cir. 2010). In a case such as this one, however,
4
protecting Plaintiff's confidential information outweighs the temporary restrictions on
Defendant's employment options. Id.
E.
Bond Requirement
"The court may issue a preliminary injunction ... only
if the movant gives security in an
amount the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to
have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained." Fed. R. Civ. P 65(c) (emphasis added). The parties'
agreement purports to allow for injunctive relief "without posting a bond or other security." (D.I.
22 at 16).
This "agreement is in tension with the requirements of Rule 65(c)," however.
PharMethod, Inc. v. Caserta, 382 F. App'x 214, 222 (3d Cir. 2010). While there may be rare
exceptions where a bond is not required, "absent circumstances where there is no risk of monetary
loss to the defendant, the failure of a district court to require a successful applicant to post a bond
constitutes reversible error." Frank's GMC Truck Ctr., Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 847 F.2d 100,
103 (3d Cir. 1988). Here, the restrictive covenant imposes restrictions on Defendant's future
employment and, because of this, Defendant risks monetary loss. For this reason, it would be
inappropriate to waive the bond requirement despite the parties' agreement.
The court has
discretion to determine the amount of the bond. Id. It seems to me that a reasonable amount is
$250,000, which is a little less than Defendant's salary for two years. Plaintiff is hereby required
to provide a security bond in the amount of $250,000.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is
GRANTED.
5
Plaintiff has submitted a proposed order that largely tracks the language of the restrictive
covenants and is of reasonable scope. Therefore, this order will be entered as soon as Plaintiff
posts the required security bond of $250,000.
6
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?