PharMerica Corporation v. McElyea et al
Filing
8
Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 4/16/14. The Court denies Plaintiff's 2 request for a temporary restraining order. However, the Court schedules Plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction for a hearing on Thursday, April 24, 2014 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 18A (Cleveland).The Court also grants Plaintiff's 4 motion for discovery. The parties may take whatever reasonable discovery they need to prepare for the hearing.(S,HR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
------------------------------------------------------:
PHARMERICA CORPORATION,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
vs.
:
:
MARY JO MCELYEA & ABSOLUTE
:
PHARMACY, INC.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
-------------------------------------------------------
CASE NO. 1:14-CV-00774
OPINION & ORDER
[Resolving Docs. 2 & 4]
JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
In this breach of contract/misappropriation of trade secrets action, Plaintiff PharMerica
Corporation moves for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.1/ Plaintiff asks
the Court to enjoin Defendant Mary Jo McElyea from working for Defendant Absolute Pharmacy,
Inc., for six months; prohibiting Defendant McElyea from revealing confidential information;
prohibiting McElyea from soliciting Plaintiff’s clients; requiring that Defendants return all Plaintiff’s
business information they possess; and requiring that Defendants preserve communications relevant
to Plaintiff’s claims.2/ The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order but
sets Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction for a hearing. The Court also GRANTS
Plaintiff’s motion for discovery.3/
Plaintiff PharMerica is an institutional pharmacy services provider.4/ In 2011, PharMerica
acquired the assets of another pharmacy and hired some of its employees, including Defendant Mary
1/
Doc. 2.
2/
Id.
Doc. 4.
3/
4/
Doc. 1 at 2 ¶ 8.
-1-
Case No. 1:14-CV-00774
Gwin, J.
Jo McElyea.5/ McElyea served as an Account Executive and reported to the Vice President of Sales
and Client Management.6/
In March 2014, McElyea attended Plaintiff’s national sales meeting.7/ Plaintiff says McElyea
received confidential business information at the meeting.8/ Less than two weeks after the meeting,
McElyea resigned.9/ Plaintiff says that prior to leaving PharMerica McElyea forwarded her entire
customer contact list to her home account.10/
On April 7, 2014, she began working for Defendant Absolute Pharmacy in the same
geographic area where she had worked for Plaintiff.11/
When McElyea began working for Plaintiff, Plaintiff presented her with a non-compete
agreement.12/ She printed her name where the agreement said “Print Name” in the signature block
and dated it February 28, 2013, but she did not leave any mark on the signature line.13/ Plaintiff’s
Director of Human Resources signed the agreement and dated it June 25, 2013.14/
The agreement prohibits the employee from working for any competing company for six
months after leaving Plaintiff’s employment without Plaintiff’s written permission.15/ The agreement
5/
Id. at 3 ¶12, 4-5 ¶ 16.
6/
Id. at 5 ¶ 18.
7/
Id. at 9-10 ¶ 35.
8/
Id.
9/
Id. at 10 ¶ 36.
10/
Id. at 11 ¶ 40.
11/
Id. at 10 ¶¶ 36, 38.
12/
Doc. 1-1.
13/
Id. at 6.
Id.
14/
15/
Id. at 3.
-2-
Case No. 1:14-CV-00774
Gwin, J.
also prohibits the employee from soliciting Plaintiff’s clients or employees for twelve months.16/ The
agreement also says that the parties agree that monetary damages are inadequate to compensate
Plaintiff for a breach of the agreement, and that Plaintiff may recover its attorneys’ fees.17/
Plaintiff sues Defendants for breach of this agreement, misappropriation of trade secrets,
breach of the duty of loyalty, and tortious interference with business and employment relationships.18/
Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction requiring McElyea to comply
with the agreement and barring release of trade secrets.19/
In deciding whether to grant injunctive relief under Rule 65, the Court considers four factors:
(1) the movant’s likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the movant will suffer irreparable
harm without the injunction; (3) whether granting the injunction will cause substantial harm to
others; and (4) the impact of the injunction on the public interest.20/ A court need not make specific
findings on each factor, if fewer factors dispose of the issue.21/ An injunction is an “extraordinary
remedy” available only when the circumstances “clearly demand it.”22/
In this case, the Court finds that the first two factors do not support a temporary restraining
order, and, therefore, the Court will not issue a temporary restraining order.
Plaintiff has not shown a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits of its breach of
contract claim. In order to bring a breach of contract claim, Plaintiff must show a valid contract
16/
Id. at 4.
17/
Id. at 4-5.
18/
Doc. 1.
19/
Doc. 2.
20/
Eden Foods, Inc. v. Sebelius, 733 F.3d 626, 631 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing Ne. Ohio Coal. for Homeless v.
Husted, 696 F.3d 580, 590-91 (6th Cir. 2012).
21/
Six Clinics Holding Corp., II v. Cafcomp Sys., Inc., 119 F.3d 393, 399 (6th Cir. 1997).
22/
City of Pontiac Retired Emps. Ass'n v. Schimmel, 726 F.3d 767, 784 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting Leary v.
Daeschner, 228 F.3d 729, 739 (6th Cir.2000)).
-3-
Case No. 1:14-CV-00774
Gwin, J.
exists.23/ Given that McElyea printed her name where the contract said, “Print Name,” but did not
sign on the main signature line, the facts at this time do not show that McElyea clearly intended to
sign the contract. A printed name may constitute a signature, but only where that mark is intended
to constitute a signature.24/
And although conduct may demonstrate agreement to a contract,25/ the fact that Plaintiff did
not sign the contract until four months after it presented the contract to McElyea suggests that both
parties did not intend for the written agreement to constitute part of their employment relationship;
rather McElyea could have rejected the contract and Plaintiff acquiesced until June 2013.
Additionally, non-compete agreements must contain reasonable restrictions on the
employee’s ability to work.26/ Without additional information about her employment at PharMerica
and Absolute Pharmacy, the Court cannot conclude that the restrictions in this case are reasonable
and that Plaintiff is clearly entitled to relief. Therefore, Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of
success on its claims based on the non-compete agreement.
Moreover, Plaintiff fails on the second factor; it cannot show an irreparable injury without
the restraining order because Plaintiff’s common law claims against Defendants are compensable
at law. If Plaintiff loses any customers or employees as a result of the disclosure of its confidential
23/
Torrance v. Cincinnati Metro. Hous. Auth., No. C-081292, 2010 WL 1239555, at * 4 (Ohio Ct. App. Mar.
31, 2010).
24/
See Weiss v. Hanscom, 205 S.W.2d 485, 487 (Ky. 1947) (quoting Reed v. Hendrix’s Ex’r, 201 S.W. 482, 485
(Ky. 1918)) (“[A]ny mark or character intended as a signature is sufficient.” (emphasis added)); Sturgill v. Randolph,
No. CA85-05-029, 1985 WL 4643, at *2 (Ohio Ct. App. Dec. 23, 1985) (per curiam) (trial court did not err in finding
a valid signature where name was “typed on the signature line” (emphasis added)). The Court does not need to decide
whether Ohio or Kentucky law applies to the formation of the contract at this time. Under either law, Plaintiff has not
shown he is likely to succeed on the merits with respect to the agreement.
25/
See American States Ins. Co. v. Honeywell, Inc., No. 56552, 1990 WL 19319, at *5-6 (Ohio Ct. App. Mar.
1, 1990); Cowden Mfg. Co. v. Sys. Equip. Lessors, Inc., 608 S.W.2d 58, 61 (Ky. App. 1980).
26/
See Raimonde v. Van Vlerah, 325 N.E.2d 544, 547 (Ohio 1975); Stiles v. Reda, 228 S.W.2d 455, 456 (Ky.
1950).
-4-
Case No. 1:14-CV-00774
Gwin, J.
business information, Plaintiff will be able to prove its lost profits or replacements costs.
Plaintiff cannot show irreparable harm here particularly because the Court will schedule a
hearing on the preliminary injunction; in a short time, Plaintiff will be able to present evidence
showing that it cannot effectively calculate its lost profits or costs.
Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order. However,
the Court schedules Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction for a hearing on Thursday, April
24, 2014 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 18A (Cleveland).
The Court also GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for discovery. The parties may take whatever
reasonable discovery they need to prepare for the hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/
James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: April 16, 2014
-5-
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?