MAINLINE INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC v FORDHAM

Filing 54

ORDER denied 5 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by JUDGE RICHARD SMOAK on 7/21/2011. (sea)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

MAINLINE INFORMATION SYSTEMS,
INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.

CASE NO. 4:11cv137/RS-WCS

JIMMY D. FORDHAM,
Defendant.
__________________________________
ORDER
Before me are Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 5) and
Defendant’s Motion to Abate and Initial Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary
Injunction (Doc. 21). An evidentiary hearing was held on July 20, 2011. The Motion is
DENIED.
A party seeking a preliminary injunction bears the burden of establishing its
entitlement to relief. Scott v. Roberts, 612 F.3d 1279, 1290 (11th Cir. 2010). In
considering the propriety of preliminary relief, four factors are relevant: (1) whether there
is a substantial likelihood that the party applying for preliminary relief will succeed later
on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will suffer an irreparable injury absent
preliminary relief; (3) whether the harm that the applicant will likely suffer outweighs
any harm that its opponent will suffer as a result of an injunction; and (4) whether
preliminary relief would disserve the public interest. Id.

Here, Plaintiff’s Motion seeks the entry of a preliminary injunction prohibiting the
Defendant from continuing to contact Plaintiff’s employees for the purpose of soliciting
them to leave Plaintiff and for disclosing or utilizing trade secrets obtained while
employed by Plaintiff. (Doc. 5, p. 10). Thus, to be successful on the Motion, Plaintiff has
to demonstrate that there is a substantial likelihood that it will succeed on the merits of its
tortious interference with business relationship claim and/or its misappropriation of trade
secrets claim. (See Doc. 1, p. 4-5).
At hearing, Plaintiff presented no witnesses and only submitted two affidavits.
The first affidavit is a threadbare declaration by Richard S. Kearney, Plaintiff’s CEO, that
the allegations of the complaint are true and correct. (Doc. 1, p. 6). The second is the
declaration of William Nemesi, a senior vice president for Plaintiff. (See Doc. 29,
Attach. 1). Mr. Nemesi alleged that Defendant contacted twenty-two of Plaintiff’s
employees for the purpose of soliciting their employment. He also alleges that an
additional fourteen of Plaintiff’s employees were contacted by Sirius personnel under the
direction of Defendant. Mr. Nemesi’s allegations are the foundation for Plaintiff’s
Motion. However, testimony presented at the hearing directly contradicts Mr. Nemesi’s
declaration. Defendant testified that he had not been in contact with a majority of those
listed in the declaration. In addition, Mr. Applelby, Mr. Besley, Mr. Robbins, and Mr.
Bench supported Defendant’s testimony and stated that Defendant had never solicited
them to be employed by Sirius. The evidence presented at the hearing calls into question
the accuracy of Mr. Nemesi’s statement, and it does not indicate a systematic attempt to
pirate Plaintiff’s key personnel.

For these reasons, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the
merits of its claims. Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood that Defendant’s interference
“with an at-will employment contract [was] . . . purely malicious and not coupled with
any legitimate competitive economic interest." Hodge v. Orlando Utils. Comm'n, 2009
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77094 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 28, 2009) (citing Heavener, Ogier Servs., Inc.
v. R. W. Fla. Region, Inc., 418 So. 2d 1074, 1076-77 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Likewise,
Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of success on the trade secrets count because it did
not present any testimony regarding Defendant use of trade secrets.

ORDERED on July 21, 2011.
/S/ Richard Smoak
RICHARD SMOAK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE