Circle S Industries, Inc. v. Berryman

Decision Date22 January 1993
Citation613 So.2d 329
CourtAlabama Supreme Court
PartiesCIRCLE "S" INDUSTRIES, INC., et al. v. Steven R. BERRYMAN, et al. 1910496.

Phillip Henry Pitts of Pitts, Pitts & Thompson, Selma, and Robert K. Spotswood and Michael S. Denniston of Bradley, Arant, Rose & White, Birmingham, for appellants.

Daniel H. Markstein III, Tony G. Miller, and Michael D. Mulvaney of Maynard, Cooper Frierson & Gale, P.C., Birmingham, for appellees.

ADAMS, Justice.

Circle "S" Industries, Inc. ("CSI"), American Fine Wire Corp. ("AFW"), and American Fine Wire, Ltd. ("AFWL")--referred to collectively as "the plaintiffs"--appeal from an order denying their motion to appoint an arbitrator to determine whether Peter Douglas had failed to comply with the terms of a consent judgment entered in the plaintiffs' action against Douglas, Steven R. Berryman, and Douglas Fine Wire Corporation. We reverse and remand.

The plaintiffs, three affiliated corporations, 1 produce and market "interconnection bonding wire," that is, small diameter wire used in "micro-electronics." In August 1989, Douglas and Berryman resigned their positions as "key employees" of the plaintiffs and organized the Douglas Fine Wire Corporation. The plaintiffs subsequently sought and obtained a preliminary injunction against the defendants' competing in the fine wire industry. While the judgment granting the preliminary injunction awaited review in this Court, the parties consented to a judgment on the basis of a negotiated settlement agreement.

The consent judgment contained the following pertinent provisions regarding the obligations of Berryman and Douglas:

"III. General Obligations of Berryman and Douglas

"....

"2. During the period from the date of entry of the Consent Decree and continuing to and including December 31, 1991, DFWC, Berryman, and Douglas ... will not engage in the Fine Wire Business, or in any business which is competitive ... with the Fine Wire Business, directly or indirectly, either on their own account or while employed by or associated with another ... entity.... Douglas is specifically authorized to render his services ... to certain corporations ... which have purchased products from AFW or AFWL ..., provided, however, that such consulting services shall in no way involve or relate to the Fine Wire business and provided further that ... Douglas shall not render any services as a consultant or otherwise to any of the following major customers of AFW and AFWL: Intel, Motorola, National Semiconductor, and Texas Instruments....

"....

"4. The parties stipulate and agree that the products manufactured by AFW and AFWL are sold in competition with a small number of manufacturers, located in Singapore, Japan, Korea, Switzerland, Germany and the United States, in worldwide markets. The parties further stipulate and agree that the obligation of DFWC, Berryman and Douglas not to engage in the Fine Wire Business as set forth in this Consent Decree will fail in its essential purpose unless it encompasses all countries, including the entire United States, in which AFW and AFWL sell, or actively seek to sell, their products or otherwise conduct business. Accordingly, the covenant not to compete as set forth in this Consent Decree shall encompass that geographic region."

(Emphasis added.)

The consent judgment also contained the following provisions:

"V. Agreement to Arbitrate

"1. All claims, demands, disputes, controversies and differences of any kind whatsoever that may arise between the parties concerning or with respect [to] or in connection with the restrictions on disclosure of this Consent Decree to third parties, the ... [o]bligations of Berryman and Douglas, [and] the ... [o]bligations of CSI, AFW and AFWL, ... shall be settled by arbitration as herein set forth.

"....

"7. The parties agree that the matters which may be arbitrated under this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Sisters of Visitation v. COCHRAN PLASTERING CO. INC.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • March 10, 2000
    ...of Alabama v. Brown Marx Tower Ltd. Partnership, 620 So.2d 648 (Ala.1993) (real-estate-management agreement); Circle "S" Indus., Inc. v. Berryman, 613 So.2d 329 (Ala.1993) (consent judgment involving agreement not to compete); Garikes, Wilson, & Atkinson, Inc. v. Episcopal Foundation of Jef......
  • Lopez v. Home Buyers Warranty Corp.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • August 20, 1993
    ...the applicability of the FAA when using the "contemplation" test. Continental Grain Co., supra, citing Circle "S" Industries, Inc. v. Berryman, 613 So.2d 329, 331 (Ala.1993). In this case, we find no evidence that the parties contemplated substantial interstate activity when they entered in......
  • Ex parte Jones
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • July 16, 1993
    ...Corp. of Alabama, Inc. v. Brown Marx Tower Ltd., 620 So.2d 648 (Ala.1993) (real estate management agreement); Circle "S" Industries, Inc. v. Berryman, 613 So.2d 329 (Ala.1993) (consent judgment involving agreement not to compete); Garikes, Wilson, & Atkinson, Inc. v. Episcopal Foundation of......
  • Continental Grain Co., Inc. v. Beasley
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • July 16, 1993
    ...that the locus actus, rather than the scope of the contract, determines the applicability of the FAA." Circle "S" Industries, Inc. v. Berryman, 613 So.2d 329, 331 (Ala.1993). In performing their contractual obligations, the plaintiffs were directly engaging in the production of articles to ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT