RAZOR TECHNOLOGY, LLC v. HENDRICKSON et al

Filing 35

ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, DEFENDANTS' IS DENIED AS OUTLINED HEREIN. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MARK A. KEARNEY ON 5/3/18. 5/3/18 ENTERED AND COPIES EMAILED TO COUNSEL.(jaa, ) Modified on 5/3/2018 (lisad, ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RAZOR TECHNOLOGY, LLC

v.

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 18-654

TODD HENDRICKSON, et al.

ORDER
AND NOW, this

3rd

day of May 2018, upon considering Plaintiffs Motion for a

preliminary injunction (ECF Doc. No. 24), Defendants' Response (ECF Doc. No. 26), after
evaluating the credibility of several witnesses and studying admitted exhibits at our extensive
preliminary injunction hearing after expedited discovery, and for reasons in the accompanying
Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is ORDERED Plaintiffs Motion (ECF Doc. No.
24) is DENIED as:
1.

Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits as to the existence of

definitive post-employment restrictive covenants with the former employee or as to taking the
Plaintiffs trade secrets to use with a new competing company;
2.

Plaintiff has not adduced evidence of imminent and irreparable harm;

3.

Balancing of equities favors allowing the former employee to work for his new

company over a possible but largely undefined claim the former employee violated an undefined
post-employment restrictive covenant or for use of a customer's billing preferences; and,
4.

Enjoining the former employee based on an undefined post-employment

restrictive covenant will not serve the public interest given Pennsylvania's long standing scrutiny
of post-employment restrictions.