United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division
Brian K. Hall, Plaintiffs
Edgewood Partners Insurance Center, Inc., Defendant
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Jeffrey J. Helmick, United States District judge
matter is before me on the Defendant's motion for a
temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 11) and Plaintiffs'
opposition (Doc. No. 15). Also before me are the post-hearing
supplemental briefs of the parties (Doc. Nos. 19 and 22)
including exhibits. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §1332.
late 1980's, Brian Hall and Michael Thompson began
working in the commercial property and casualty insurance
industry aimed at the equipment rental market. In late 1996,
Hall and Thompson formed the entity Hylant Specialty Programs
and continued to sell and market property and casualty
insurance in this same market throughout the United States.
spring of 2012 and pursuant to an asset purchase agreement,
USI acquired certain assets from Hylant. Both Hall and
Thompson were employed by USI and both their employment
agreements with USI contained restrictive covenants including
confidentiality, non-competition, and non-solicitation.
December 2016, Edgewood Partners Insurance Center, Inc.
acquired certain assets of USI's equipment and rental
business including the right to enforce the restrictive
covenants in the Hall and Thompson agreements. Hall and
Thompson were advised their talents would be utilized until
May 2017, at which time they would become employees of EPIC.
March 2017, Hall was advised he would not be offered
employment with EPIC. A month later, Thompson was offered a
position with EPIC albeit with reductions in compensation and
benefits. When Thompson advised EPIC he would not execute the
employment agreement, he was immediately terminated.
April 17, 2017, Hall and Thompson initiated this complaint
for declarator;' relief against EPIC relative to
post-employment restrictive covenants. Plaintiffs seek a
declaration that they be permitted to continue to work with
their long-standing and pre-existing clients developed prior
to HPICs acquisition of USI.
days later Plaintiffs filed a motion for an expedited hearing
on their declaratory judgment action. (Doc. No. 4). On April
27, 2017, 1 held a telephonic status conference and set a
hearing for May 24th.
filed its motion for a TRO and preliminary injunction on May
10, 2017. Defendants want Plaintiffs enjoined from violating
the terms of their post-employment restrictive covenants.
Specifically, the Defendants want the Plaintiffs to cease
soliciting, directing or indirectly, or accepting business
from EPIC's restricted clients.
15, 2017, 1 conducted a hearing on Defendant's motion.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b), I must examine and weigh the following
factors to determine the propriety of a TRO or a preliminary
injunction: (1) whether the moving party has shown a strong
likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the moving
party will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not
issued; (3) whether the issuance of the injunction would
cause substantial harm to others; and (4) whether die public
interest would be served by issuing the injunction.
Overstreet v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County