Colorado Accounting Machines, Inc. v. Mergenthaler, 79CA0796
| Decision Date | 27 March 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 79CA0796,79CA0796 |
| Parties | COLORADO ACCOUNTING MACHINES, INC., a Colorado Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Marc Alan MERGENTHALER, and Microdata Corporation, a California Corporation qualified in Colorado, Defendants-Appellees. . I |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Lawrence Litvak, P. C., Lawrence Litvak, Denver, for plaintiff-appellant.
Kevin Haight, Thornton, for defendant-appellee Marc Alan Mergenthaler.
Holme, Roberts & Owen, Lawrence W. Treece, Thomas E. Downey, Jr., Denver, for defendant-appellee Microdata Corp.
Plaintiff, the previous employer of defendant Mergenthaler, appeals the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants and dismissing plaintiff's claims based upon a restrictive covenant in the employment agreement between plaintiff and Mergenthaler. We affirm.
The employment agreement entered into between plaintiff and defendant Mergenthaler contained numerous provisions, including: a nondisclosure of trade secrets clause; a nondisclosure of customer list clause; and a time and space, noncompetition, restrictive covenant.
After defendant Mergenthaler left plaintiff's employ and commenced work for defendant Microdata Corporation, plaintiff brought this action claiming, inter alia, that Microdata is its competitor, that defendant Mergenthaler had breached the restrictive covenant, and that Microdata induced that breach. The trial court ruled that the restrictive covenant was void under § 8-2-113(2), C.R.S.1973, and dismissed these claims.
Plaintiff contends that because the employment agreement contains a trade-secret provision the unrelated restrictive covenant is valid under § 8-2-113(2) (b), C.R.S.1973. We disagree. Section 8-2-113(2), C.R.S.1973, provides:
Even if we assume, arguendo, that a narrowly drafted non-competition clause specifically protecting trade secrets would be a valid exception under subsection (b), here, the sole purpose behind the restrictive covenant is to prohibit all competition. The separate trade-secret nondisclosure provision adequately protects plaintiff's interests, and the restrictive covenant is not limited to enhancing this protection....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reed Mill & Lumber Co., Inc. v. Jensen
...in duration and geographic scope. Nat'l Graphics Co. v. Dilley, 681 P.2d 546 (Colo.App.1984); Colo. Accounting Machs., Inc. v. Mergenthaler, 44 Colo.App. 155, 609 P.2d 1125 (1980). To be reasonable, a noncompete agreement must not be broader than necessary to protect the promisee's legitima......
-
Nutting v. Ram Southwest, Inc.
...protecting employees "from non-competition clauses except in carefully defined circumstances." Colorado Accounting Machines, Inc. v. Mergenthaler, 44 Colo.App. 155, 609 P.2d 1125, 1126 (1980). This public policy is embodied in Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-2-113, which limits non-competition agreeme......
-
Agudo, Pineiro & Kates, P.A., v. Harbert Const. Co.
...Mindenberg v. Carmel Film Productions, Inc., 132 Cal.App.2d 598, 282 P.2d 1024 (1955); Colorado Accounting Machines, Inc. v. Mergenthaler, 44 Colo.App. 155, 609 P.2d 1125 (Colo.Ct.App.1980); 86 C.J.S., Torts § 44, p. 965; Prosser, Law of Torts, § 129 at p. 931, (4th Ed.1977). In C.J.S. we f......
-
Vaske v. DuCharme, McMillen & Associates, Inc.
...P.2d 1339, 1342 (Colo.App.1984); National Graphics Co. v. Dilley, 681 P.2d 546, 547 (Colo.App.1984); Colorado Accounting Machs., Inc. v. Mergenthaler, 609 P.2d 1125, 1126 (Colo.App.1980); see also Dresser Indus., Inc. v. Sandvick, 732 F.2d 783, 787-88 (10th 11 While certiorari was granted i......
-
Chapter 19 - § 19.2 • NONCOMPETITION AGREEMENTS
...and that the exceptions set forth in the statute should be narrowly construed. Colorado Accounting Machs., Inc. v. Mergenthaler, 609 P.2d 1125, 1127 (Colo. App. 1980). The party seeking to enforce a restrictive covenant has the burden of proving that one of the exceptions applies. Porter In......
-
Chapter 19 - § 19.2 • NONCOMPETITION AGREEMENTS
...and that the exceptions set forth in the statute should be narrowly construed. Colorado Accounting Machs., Inc. v. Mergenthaler, 609 P.2d 1125, 1127 (Colo. App. 1980). The party seeking to enforce a restrictive covenant has the burden of proving that one of the exceptions applies. Porter In......
-
Chapter 34 - § 34.1 • THE LAW OF RESTRICTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS IN COLORADO
...is to protect "employees from non-competition clauses except in carefully defined circumstances." Colo. Accounting Mach. v. Mergenthaler, 609 P.2d 1125, 1126 (Colo. App. 1980). Any such clause that does not fall within one of the statutory exceptions is "void, not merely voidable." Id. at 1......
-
Chapter 22 - § 22.3 • ELEMENTS DEFINED
...judgment was proper on claim of tortious interference with contractual relationship); Colo. Accounting Machines, Inc. v. Mergenthaler, 609 P.2d 1125 (Colo. App. 1980) (distinguishing Carman, 601 P.2d 646, and stating that where non-compete restrictive covenant in contract was void, not mere......