A Practical Guide to Surviving the TRO Stage of Non-Compete Litigation The vast majority of non-compete
agreements explicitly state that a breach of the agreement entitles the non-breaching employer to “injunctive relief” and/or a TRO. Notwithstanding the existence of this explicit contractual language, my ex- perience has shown that one should tread lightly when running to the courthouse with the argument that the non-breaching party is entitled to what is no less than one of the most “extraordinary” forms of relief. See B & P Enters. v. Overland Equip. Co., 133 Md. App. 583, 758 A.2d 1026 (2000). Requests for TROs occur at the very early stages of litigation, and are granted (or denied) “without op-
portunity for a full adversary hearing on the propriety of . . . issuance.” Maryland Rule 15-501. As a result, even though the employer client will no doubt believe that the ex-employee’s actions have created an emergency, a close analysis of the situation and the underlying rules of procedure is imperative.
Be Brief and Move Quickly to Seek Relief. Since all attorneys like to tell war sto-
ries when given the opportunity, I will take this opportunity to tell one myself from the perspective of an attorney representing an ex-employee against non-compete claims of an ex-employer. It was a typical weekday afternoon when my office received a call from an attorney
who informed us that he intended to be in court that afternoon with a request for a TRO against a new employee of one of the firm’s corporate clients. In response, I began the process of collecting my TRO research and arranging my afternoon so that I could attend the “emergency” hearing that had been requested by the ex-employer. After being invited with my colleague into the judge’s chambers, along with counsel for the employer seeking to enforce a non-compete agreement, we were presented with what was no less than a multi-page, multi-tabbed law review article intended by the complaining ex- employer to be a Complaint and Motion for a TRO against our ex-employee client. Upon presentation of these materials,
Welcome New or Reinstated MTLA Members
July 2006 - December 2006
Patricia G. Adams Michael Abelson
Edward Amourgis Dennis Andreone Alfredo Antezana
Rebecca Antezana Fred A. Balkin
Howard Berstein Harry W. Blondell
Frank D. Boston, III Brian Bregman
Joseph Cammarata Jane A. Canter
Hong S. “Paul” Chung Carolyn M. Cole Ron Cole
Philip Culpepper Patrick J. Devine Joel DuBoff
Thomas Fortune Fay Joel Ferrante Joel Finkelstein
Lindsey B. Foster Tom Gimer Craig Grabo
Lonnie Greenblatt Linda Ham
Winter 2007
Joseph Hangarter Robin Henley Peter Holland Lee Hopkins Derek Howell
Nadine Huggins Thomas F. Huse Jerry Hyatt
Damani Ingram William Jackson Anitha Johnson
Kim Michelle Keenan John R. Kelly Brian Kim
Christopher P. Kennedy Nadia A. Konstantinova Geralyn Lawrence Paul Levene Karen Levian
Emily Malarkey Bryan Marshall
Stephen Marshall Alison Mason Maureen May
Jeremy K. McDonald Laurie G. McKowen Alexander McMullen
Trial Reporter Lisa Miller Richard Mlynek
Carlton James Moss, Jr. Kimberly Myers John Nader
William Nicklas Anita Patel
Nathan Peak Kristine Rea George Rose
Aaron Schwartz Allan M. Siegel Lisa J. Smith Bruce Stern
Joanne L. Suder George Tankard J. Brian Tansey Lauren Pisano Thomas Pyles
Nancy Sachitano
Suzanne C. Shapiro Timothy Tinsman
Marietta B. Warren James H. West Allison Wright
35
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64