United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division
MANAGEMENT REGISTRY, INC. PLAINTIFF
MARIA CALVETTI and STAFFING NETWORK HOLDINGS, INC. DEFENDANTS MANAGEMENT REGISTRY, INC. PLAINTIFF
STARR DELIA and STAFFING NETWORK HOLDINGS, INC. DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
H. MCKINLEY, JR. CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
April 1, 2018, Plaintiff Management Registry, Inc. filed
these two actions against Defendant, Staffing Network
Holdings, Inc., and two former employees, Maria Calvetti and
Stan-Delia bringing numerous claims related to Calvetti's
and Delia's alleged breach of their employment
agreements. On April 2, 2018, Management Registry moved for a
temporary restraining order to enforce the non competition,
non solicitation, nondisclosure, and nonrecruitment clauses
in those agreements. The Court held a telephonic hearing on
April 5, 2018, on the motions for temporary restraining
order. Counsel James M. Morris participated in the hearing on
behalf of Plaintiff. Chad Propst entered a special appearance
on behalf of Defendants and participated in the hearing.
Initially, after examining the complaints and on its own
motion, the Court CONSOLIDATES the two
cases. All further pleadings shall be filed in Civil Action
determine whether a temporary restraining order should issue
under Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b), the Court considers four factors:
"(1) whether the movant has a strong likelihood of
success on the merits; (2) whether the movant would suffer
irreparable injury without the injunction; (3) whether
issuance of the injunction would cause substantial harm to
others; and (4) whether the public interest would be served
by the issuance of the injunction." Certified
Restoration Dry Cleaning Network, L.L.C. v. Tenke Corp..
511 F.3d 535, 542 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting Tumblebus Inc.
v. Cranmer, 399 F.3d 754, 760 (6th Cir. 2005)). See
Mich. State AFL-CIO v. Schuette. 847 F.3d 800, 803
(6th Cir. 2017). It is unnecessary for the Court to make
findings regarding each factor if "fewer are dispositive
of the issue." In re DeLorean Motor Co., 755
F.2d 1223, 1228 (6th Cir. 1985) (citing United States v.
School Dist. of Ferndale. Mich., 577 F.2d 1339, 1352
(6th Cir. 1978)). The party seeking [the temporary
restraining order] bears the burden of justifying such
relief. Michigan Catholic Conference & Catholic
Family Servs. v. Burwell, 755 F.3d 372, 382 (6th Cir.
2014) (quoting McNeilly v. Land, 684 F.3d 611, 615
(6th Cir. 2012)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Court finds that the balance of these factors weighs toward
issuing a temporary restraining order. First, Management
Registry has demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on
the merits at this juncture. Under Kentucky law, covenants
not to compete '"are valid and enforceable if the
terms are reasonable in light of the surrounding
circumstances.'" ISCO Industries, Inc. v.
Shugart. 2014 WL 2218116, *3 (W.D. Ky. May 28,
2Ol4)(quoting Crowell v. Woodruff. 245 S.W.2d 447,
449 (Ky. 1951)). To be enforceable, "the restraint must
be 'no greater than reasonably necessary to' prevent
unfair competition by the employee or his subsequent
employer." Id. Here, both Calvetti's and
Delia's employment agreements appear to be reasonable
prohibiting them from disclosing confidential information and
for a period of two years from soliciting Plaintiffs
customers, recruiting its employees, and competing with it.
These clauses appear to be reasonable. See Cent.
Adjustment Bureau. Inc. v. Ingram Assocs., Inc.. 622
S.W.2d 681, 685-86 (Ky. Ct. App. l98l)(finding two-year
nationwide restriction on competition
reasonable). Thus, the first factor weighs in favor of
issuing a temporary restraining order.
the Court finds it probable that Plaintiff will suffer
irreparable harm absent relief. The Sixth Circuit provides
that "[t]he likely interference with customer
relationships resulting from the breach of a non-compete
agreement is the kind of injury for which monetary damages
are difficult to calculate." Tenke, 511 F.3d at
550. "The loss of customer goodwill often amounts to
irreparable injury because the damages flowing from such
losses are difficult to compute." Basicomputer
Corp., 973 F.2d at 512. See also Genesis Med.
Imaging, 2008 WL 4180263, *9 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 5, 2008);
Stryker Corp. v. Bruty, 2013 WL 1962391, *6 (W.D.
Mich. May 10, 2013); Kelly Services. Inc. v.
Noretto. 495 F.Supp.2d 645 (E.D. Mich. 2007). Plaintiff
has alleged competitive injuries of this sort. Accordingly,
the second factor weighs in favor of a temporary restraining
third factor in determining whether to issue a temporary
restraining order is "whether ... the [order] would
cause substantial harm to others." Tenke, 511
F.3d at 550-51. In the instant case, there is no indication
that a temporary restraining order enforcing the terms of the
parties' Agreements would cause any harm to third
parties. In considering the balance of hardships between the
parties, the Court finds that at this time there does not
appear to be a risk of harm to Plaintiffs. For instance,
defense counsel in emails to plaintiffs counsel indicated
that Calvetti and Delia were not soliciting, nor did they
intend to solicit, any of Plaintiff s customers or employees.
Thus, the Court finds that by restraining Plaintiffs to
refrain from doing what they indicate they are not doing will
not harm them.
final factor the Court must evaluate is "whether the
public interest would be served by the issuance of the
[restraining order]." Tenke, 511 F.3d at 551.
"[T]he public interest is always served in the
enforcement of valid restrictive covenants contained in
lawful contracts." First Energy Sols. Corp. v.
Flerick. 521 Fed.Appx. 521, 529 (6th Cir. 2013). Thus,
this factor weighs in favor of Plaintiff as well.
considered these factors, the Court finds that a temporary
restraining order is appropriate.
IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Management
Registry, Inc.'s Motions for Temporary Restraining Order
[DN 6, 3:18CV-00201-JHM, DN 4, 3:18CV-00202-JHM] are GRANTED.
Maria Calvetti and Starr Delia are ENJOINED
from selling or soliciting temporary employment and staffing
related business to customers and clients within their former
geographic locations (specifically seventy-five (75) mile
radius of any geographic or market area wherein they were
employed or engaged in activities related to their employment
with Management Registry, which would include business
locations in Arizona, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, and
Minnesota) that were either (i) serviced by Management
Registry and/or All Staff during their last two years of
Management Registry employment or (ii) part of Management
Registry's database and about whom Management Registry
had gathered Proprietary Information;
Maria Calvetti and Starr Delia are ENJOINED
from violating the nondisclosure provision of their
Maria Calvetti, Starr Delia, and Staffing Network Holdings
are ENJOINED from misappropriating MRI's
Staffing Network Holdings is ENJOINED from
benefiting from or causing Calvetti or Delia to work in
violation of their Employment Contract, including but not
limited to the noncompete, non-solicitation, and
non-disclosure provisions of that Contract;
Despite the mandatory language of Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(c),
"the rule in our circuit has long been that the district
court possesses discretion over whether to require the
posting of security." Appalachian Regional
Healthcare. Inc. v. Coventry Health and Life Ins. Co.,
714 F.3d 424, 431 (6th Cir. 2013)(quoting Moltan Co. v.
Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc., 55 F.3d 1171, 1176 (6th Cir.
1995)). Accordingly, the ...