Gavaras v. Greenspring Media, LLC et al

Filing 57

ORDER denying 44 Defendants' Motion to Stay (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Ann D. Montgomery on 04/09/2014. (TLU)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Thomas Gavaras,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER
Civil No. 13-3566 ADM/JJK

Greenspring Media, LLC,
Hour Acquisition Group, LLC d/b/a
Greenspring Media, LLC,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
Susan E. Tegt, Esq., and Daniel J. Ballintine, Esq., Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.,
Bloomington, MN, for Plaintiff.
Michael Barton, Esq., Theresa Smith Lloyd, Esq., and Courtney Nichols, Esq., Plunkett Cooney,
Bloomfield Hills, MI; and, Mary M.L. O’Brien, Esq., and Jacalyn N. Chinander, Esq., Meagher
& Geer, PLLP, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________

This matter is before the undersigned United States District Judge for a ruling on
Defendants Greenspring Media, LLC, and Hour Acquisition Group, LLC d/b/a Greenspring
Media, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion for a Stay of Order Pending Appeal [Docket
No. 44] (the “Motion”).1
On January 13, 2014, the Court found a seventeen-year-old noncompete agreement, for a
generic marketing and sales position, facially unenforceable because the agreement’s plain
language was unclear, vague, overly broad, and incomplete. Order, January 13, 2014 [Docket
No. 26]. As a result, on February 3, 2014, Plaintiff Thomas Gavaras (“Gavaras”) gave notice of

1

Defendants also requested permission to file a motion to reconsider, which the Court
denied on February 6, 2014 [Docket No. 36].

his resignation from Minnesota Monthly, a magazine now owned by Greenspring Media, and
commenced employment with the Builders Association of the Twin Cities (“BATC”).
Although claims remain pending in this case, Defendants filed with the Eighth Circuit
Court of Appeals an interlocutory appeal of the January 13, 2014 Order. See Not. of Appeal
[Docket No. 37]. Gavaras filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the basis that the Eighth
Circuit lacks jurisdiction. Gavaras argues the January 13, 2014 Order is neither an immediatelyappealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), nor a final decision under 18
U.S.C. § 1291. The Eighth Circuit has referred the motion to dismiss to a panel hearing, which it
will schedule after the completion of briefing.
Defendants request a stay of the effects of the Court’s January 13, 2014 Order pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(c). The rule “codifies the inherent power of courts to make
whatever order is deemed necessary to preserve the status quo and to ensure the effectiveness of
the eventual judgment.” Native Am. Council of Tribes v. Weber, CIV. 09-4182-KES, 2013 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 105712, at *3 (S.D. July 29, 2013) (quoting 11 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal
Practice and Procedure § 2904 (2d ed. 2012)). In exercising its discretion over whether to grant
such a stay, this Court considers the following relevant factors: (1) whether the stay applicant
has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant
will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure
the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies. Brady v.
NFL, 779 F. Supp. 2d 1043, 1045-46 (D. Minn. 2011). A stay intrudes upon the ordinary
process of judicial review and administration and is not routinely done as a matter of right even
if the moving party might sustain irreparable harm. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 427 (2009)

2

(citations omitted). Because stays are matters of judicial discretion, the moving party “bears the
burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.” Id. at 434
(citations omitted). “Because the burden of meeting this standard is a heavy one, more
commonly stay requests will not meet this standard and will be denied.” Brady, 779 F. Supp. 2d
at 1046 (quoting 11 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2904 at 503-05
(2d ed. 2012)).
On likelihood of success on the merits, the Court has already analyzed the plain language
of the noncompete agreement and found it deficient in many respects. Order, January 13, 2014.
The noncompete agreement is invalid and unenforceable because the plain language of the
agreement is woefully unclear and, the portions that are not ambiguous are impermissibly over
broad. Furthermore, Gavaras is accused of having confidential information consisting of
“strategy, operations, logistics, and/or positioning methods of Defendants,” but it is unclear what
makes this information confidential. Gavaras was hired seventeen years ago to do generic sales
and marketing work for the Defendants’ magazine. To the extent that he developed and helped
sell a home tour for Minnesota Monthly, it is unclear what unique confidential information
Defendants provided him that he should be prohibited from sharing with a new employer.
Defendants have not shown a likelihood that, even if the Eighth Circuit remands the case for
further discovery or argument, further discovery or argument will demonstrate the noncompete
agreement is enforceable under Minnesota law.
Next, on irreparable harm to Defendants and substantial injury to the Plaintiff, Gavaras
has resigned his position and is gainfully employed at BATC. Defendants argue they will suffer
irreparable harm if Gavaras is allowed to work for BATC because Gavaras has confidential

3

information regarding their strategy, operations, logistics, and/or positioning methods for the
Midwest Home Luxury Home Tour. But as discussed above, it is unlikely that any of this
information is confidential and the Court is disinclined to harm Gavaras’s employability by
requiring him to give up his employment pending a bond posted by Defendants, a bond, which
by its nature, would not benefit Gavaras until the conclusion of the litigation.
Finally, Minnesota law disfavors restrictive covenants. The public interest in this case
lies in protecting employees from vague, overly broad noncompete agreements. Therefore, a
stay pending appeal does not make sense.
Based on all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Defendants’ Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal [Docket No. 44] is DENIED.
BY THE COURT:

s/Ann D. Montgomery
ANN D. MONTGOMERY
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: April 9, 2014.

4