breach of contract lawsuit

...now browsing by tag

A Non-Compete Can Be Enforced Even When Lacking Geographic Limitation

Tuesday, December 8th, 2009

Maryland law is well settled that a non-compete must be reasonable in geographic scope and duration in order to be held enforceable. However, Maryland courts will enforce a covenant not-to-compete that does not contain a geographic limitation in certain narrow and limited circumstances. The U. S. District Court for the District of Maryland stated in Intelus v. Barton and Medplus, Inc., 7 F. Supp. 2d 635 (1998) that every non-compete must be examined to determine reasonableness based on the specific facts at hand, even non-competes that fail to contain a finite geographic limitation. The Intelus court stated:

“Competition unlimited by geography can be expected where the nature of the business concerns computer software and the ability to process information. . . Because of the broad nature of the market in which Intelus operates, a restrictive covenant limited to a narrow geographic area would render the restriction meaningless.”

In determining the reasonableness of a non-compete that does not contain a geographic limitation, Maryland courts will consider the nature of the industry and the national and perhaps global nature of the competition. In Intelus, the court concluded that the restriction was reasonably related and limited to Intelus’s need to protect its good will and client base, and therefore upheld the enforceability of the non-compete.

In Hekimian Labs, a Florida federal court, interpreting Maryland law, found that where “testimony indicated that competition within the business of remote access testing is such that the whole world is its stage” and “that there are only about 20 companies that compete in this business, and they do so on a worldwide basis,” then “to confine the restrictive covenant to a specified geographical area would render the Agreement meaningless.”

The Florida Court concluded that if the agreement did contain a geographical restriction, the offending party would only need to move outside of this restricted area and the damage to the harmed party would be the same. Because of the national and international scope of the competition between the parties, the absence of a specified geographic limitation was reasonably necessary for the protection of the party attempting to enforce the non-compete, and the covenant was upheld.

Posted in business law, franchise law | No Responses »
Tags: breach of contract case, breach of contract lawsuit, business breach of contract, business contract review, business law, business lawsuit, business litigation, confidentiality agreement, corporate litigation, covenant not to compete, franchise agreement, maryland breach of contract, maryland business law, NDA, non disclosure agreement, non solicitation agreement, non-compete, restrictive covenant

Maryland Courts May Grant Injunctive Relief Even when an Arbitration Clause Exists

Tuesday, December 8th, 2009

Maryland law permits a party to request injunctive relief from a Maryland federal or state court even when a contract states that all disputes must be referred to arbitration. The Court of Appeals of Maryland held in Brendsel v. Winchester Construction Company, Inc., 898 A.2d 472 (2006) that:

“[A]n interlocutory mechanics’ lien is in the nature of a provisional remedy, not much different than an interlocutory injunction or attachment sought to maintain the status quo so that the arbitration proceeding can have meaning and relevance, and the predominant view throughout the country is that the availability of such remedies by a court is permitted by the Federal and Uniform Arbitration Acts and is not inconsistent with the right to enforce an arbitration agreement.”

In its ruling, the Maryland Court of Appeals focused on the need for courts to have the ability to preserve the status quo by granting injunctive relief while a dispute is sent to arbitration. Without this ability, the Court held, a ruling by an arbitrator could very well be immaterial, as the damage done to a party could by that time be irreparable.

The Maryland Court of Appeals’ holding finds support from the Fourth Circuit in Merril Lynch et al. v. Bradley and Collins, 756 F.2d 1048 (1985):

“Accordingly, we hold that where a dispute is subject to mandatory arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, a district court has the discretion to grant a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo pending the arbitration of the parties’ dispute if the enjoined conduct would render that process a “hollow formality.” The arbitration process would be a hollow formality where “the arbitral award when rendered could not return the parties substantially to the status quo ante.” Lever Brothers, 554 F.2d at 123.”

Therefore, Maryland courts are permitted to intercede and grant injunctive relief in spite of an arbitration clause where the absence of such relief would cause the arbitration to be nothing more than a “hollow formality.”
This power exists even when a contractual provision states that the parties must refer all disputes to arbitration.

Posted in business law, franchise law | 2 Responses »
Tags: agreement to arbitrate, arbitration, arbitration clause, breach of contract case, breach of contract lawsuit, business breach of contract, business law, business lawsuit, business litigation, confidentiality agreement, corporate litigation, covenant not to compete, franchise agreement, injunctive relief, maryland breach of contract, maryland business law, NDA, non disclosure agreement, non solicitation agreement, preliminary injunction, TRO

Maryland Case on the Definition of “Solicit” in a Non-Solicitation Agreement

Thursday, October 29th, 2009

Mona Electric v. Truland, 193 F. Supp. 2d 874 (2002), as well as the appeal of that case, provide support for the position that a terminated employee who executed a non-solicitation provision when hired, but which did not contain an accompanying non-compete covenant, will not be in violation of the non-solicitation agreement if the clients and customers of the employee’s former place of business, and not the employee himself, initiate contact with the former employee for the purpose of conducting business. The District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held:

“there is no evidence that Gerardi violated the Agreement by “soliciting” Mona’s customers. Truland hired Gerardi as a Service Account Manager. Gerardi’s responsibilities in this new position include preparing estimates and working in the field. A part of Gerardi’s position at Truland is handling customer solicitation calls. In the electrical contracting field, customers often solicit bids from the electrical contractors. Plaintiff has not presented any evidence that Gerardi has initiated calls to customers during his employment at Truland. Rather, the evidence is that Gerardi responded to customer calls to Truland for bids. Gerardi’s acts of responding to customers who solicited him for bids clearly do not violate the Agreement. Gerardi did not sign an agreement that prohibited him from competing with Mona, he signed an agreement that precisely prohibited his “solicitation” of Plaintiff’s customers. Plaintiff asserts that the Agreement prevents Gerardi from submitting estimates to customers who call him to request bids. This would turn the non-solicitation agreement into a non-competition agreement, and under the unambiguous terms of terms of the Agreement, only solicitation of Mona’s customer’s is prohibited. Thus, were the Court to find the Agreement valid, no evidence has been presented in this case that Gerardi violated the terms of the Agreement, and summary judgment should be granted for the Defendant.” Mona Electric v. Truland, 193 F. Supp. 2d 874 (2002).

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, applying Maryland law, upheld the lower court’s findings:

“Despite Mona’s assertion to the contrary, the district court held and we agree that the plain meaning of “solicit” requires the initiation of contact. (J.A. at 135.) Therefore, in order to violate the nonsolicitation agreement, Gerardi must initiate contact with Mona’s customers. Mona argues that Gerardi solicited when he submitted estimates to Mona’s customers. However, this does not fall within the plain meaning of “solicit.” If Mona intended to prevent Gerardi from conducting business with its customers it could have easily stated that in the agreement. Taking the facts in the light most favorable to Mona, there is no evidence that Gerardi solicited Mona’s customers. Therefore, summary judgment was proper and the district court is affirmed.” Mona Electric v. Truland, 56 Fed. Appx. 108 (2003). [On appeal]

Conclusion

The Mona case and its appeal give substantial support to the position that: 1) if an employee executed only a non-solicitation agreement and not a covenant not-to-compete; and 2) because Maryland courts will interpret “solicitation” as requiring some action on the employee’s behalf to initiate contact, then by itself, the employer would fail in its attempt to prevent the former employee from doing business with the business’ clients and customers, PROVIDED that the business cannot show that the employee actively solicited those customers. The employee is barred from soliciting, ie. from taking any action to initiate contact in order to gain business. Courts will strictly construe this requirement and delve into the actual conduct of the employee in order to determine whether the employee actually “solicited” customers.

Posted in business law | 1 Response »
Tags: breach of contract case, breach of contract lawsuit, business breach of contract, business contract review, business law, business lawsuit, business litigation, confidentiality agreement, corporate litigation, covenant not to compete, maryland breach of contract, maryland business, maryland business law, NDA, non disclosure agreement, non solicitation agreement

Issues Surrounding a Maryland Breach of Contract Case

Thursday, July 23rd, 2009

Need an Attorney to help your Maryland or DC business? Contact Raymond McKenzie at 301-330-6790 or ray@mckenzie-legal.com

Breach of Contract

If you are forced to file suit in Maryland for breach of contract, do not let a poorly drafted contract hurt your chance of prevailing. Do not lose a case that you should win simply because of faulty contract language, language that could have been avoided had you retained an experienced Maryland business attorney to assist.

A contract drafted in Maryland with little or no input from a Maryland corporate lawyer can fail to include several necessary components that help to make a contract legally enforceable. These deficiencies can be fatal to your business’s chance of prevailing in a lawsuit. As a result, make sure that an experienced Maryland business attorney reviews your contracts, and that such contracts address, at minimum, the following five points:

1. Jurisdiction: If you want the ability to sue in Maryland courts, your contract must contain language where the parties submit to the jurisdiction of Maryland state and/or federal courts. This language allows you to sue a business in Maryland courts, even if the company is not incorporated in, or have offices in, Maryland. Without this language in your contract, you will most likely be forced to sue the corporation in its home state. Suing out of state can be significantly more expensive and time consuming.

2. Choice of Law: A Maryland choice of law provision states Maryland law will be used to decide the dispute. Many non-lawyers confuse choice of law with jurisdiction, and interpret the phrase “Maryland law will govern this contract” to mean that a dispute has to be heard in Maryland. That is not the case. Rather, this clause simply means that regardless of where a dispute is heard, whether in Maryland Circuit Court or Virginia or anywhere else, Maryland law will be used to decide the matter.

3. Non-compete and non-solicitation clauses: Do you want to prohibit the other party from competing with you entirely, or just stop them from soliciting your clients? If the former, then you are in need of a non-compete clause, which must be limited in geographic scope, limited in duration, and narrowly defined to protect only the interests of your business in order to be enforceable. Maryland courts will typically enforce reasonable non-competes. However, a non-compete that overreaches will often be struck down. If the latter, then you need a non-solicitation agreement, which allows the other party to compete with you, provided they do not solicit your current or former clients. A non-solicitation clause need not have geographic or time limitations so long as it only forbids the solicitation of your clients by the other party.

4. Default and Termination provisions: Make sure that your contract’s default and termination provisions are clear with regard to: a) what breaches may be cured and what breaches cannot be; b) what the time period exists for any cure; and c) whether amounts due over the life of the contract still owed even if the contract is terminated.

5. Dispute Resolution: Choose the type of dispute resolution system that you feel best fits your business. Mediation, arbitration and litigation are options, and they can be used in compliment of one another. Regardless of what method of dispute resolutions you choose, always allow your business the option of filing for emergency injunctive relief in Maryland court when necessary to avoid irreparable injury to your business.