Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp. v. Pokalsky
| Citation | 490 S.E.2d 136,227 Ga.App. 727 |
| Decision Date | 14 July 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. A97A0583,A97A0583 |
| Parties | , 1997-2 Trade Cases P 71,903, 97 FCDR 2718 ENRON CAPITAL & TRADE RESOURCES CORPORATION v. POKALSKY et al. |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
Alston & Bird, G. Conley Ingram, James C. Grant, Alston D. Correll III, Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, Elmer A. Simpson, Jr., V. Robert Denham, Jr., Atlanta, for appellant.
Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, Emmet J. Bondurant, Dirk G. Christensen, Troutman Sanders, Stephen W. Riddell, Atlanta, Robert F. Webb, Marietta, Harold G. Clarke, Atlanta, for appellees.
Enron Capital & Trade Resources, Corporation is in the business of buying, selling, and supplying energy sources. Enron also trades energy commodities. Southern Electric International, Inc. is in the business of providing engineering and consulting services to power and other electric utility companies.
While employed by Enron in Texas, Joseph Pokalsky helped Enron develop procedures for trading energy commodities. Pokalsky eventually resigned his position at Enron and accepted employment with Southern in Georgia. On the day he resigned from Enron, he and Southern filed an action in Georgia seeking a declaratory judgment that the restrictive covenants contained in the employment agreements between Pokalsky and Enron were unenforceable. The agreements provided, in part, that the employee will not, at any time after employment, make any unauthorized disclosure of any confidential business information or trade secrets of Enron or its affiliates or make any use thereof; the employee will not, for one year after the termination of employment, engage in any business competitive with the business conducted by the employer, render any advice or services to, or otherwise assist any other person, association, or entity who is engaged in any business competitive with the business conducted by the employer, in any geographic area or market where Enron conducts any business, which may limit the employee's ability to engage in certain businesses "anywhere in the world." As part of the action, Pokalsky and Southern sought a temporary restraining order to enjoin Enron from seeking to enforce the restrictive covenants, from taking any other actions to preclude Pokalsky and Southern from engaging in an employment relationship, and from benefiting in any other fashion from the enforcement of the restrictive covenants. The court issued a temporary restraining order against Enron, prohibiting Enron from seeking to enforce the non-competition obligations, acting to preclude Pokalsky and Southern from engaging in an employment relationship, and benefiting from the enforcement of those provisions.
Soon thereafter, Pokalsky and Southern moved for an interlocutory injunction to enjoin Enron from engaging in the same conduct until a final judgment was entered. At about the same time, Enron filed a lawsuit in Texas against Pokalsky and Southern seeking to enforce certain obligations contained in the same agreements.
A few days later, Pokalsky and Southern amended their motion for interlocutory injunction seeking to enjoin Enron from seeking to enforce the non-disclosure or fiduciary obligations contained in the agreements, taking any action to preclude Pokalsky and Southern from engaging in employment relationships, benefiting from the enforcement of the non-disclosure provisions, and seeking to preclude Pokalsky from using information contained in his mind. Pokalsky and Southern also filed a motion for contempt against Enron for filing the Texas action in violation of the temporary restraining order. In addition, Pokalsky and Southern filed a motion to temporarily restrain Enron from seeking to enforce the non-disclosure covenants. Finally, Pokalsky and Southern amended their motion for interlocutory injunction to enjoin Enron from pursuing, prosecuting, seeking discovery, or otherwise pursuing the Texas action.
In a detailed order, the court granted the motion for interlocutory injunction as amended, denied the motion for contempt, and ordered Enron to dismiss and cease pursuing the Texas action. Enron appeals.
1. Enron contends the trial court erred in entertaining the action because it does not present a justiciable case or controversy. Specifically, Enron argues that a justiciable case or controversy is presented for a declaratory judgment when a plaintiff needs judicial direction in order to decide what action to take in the future, not when he seeks confirmation of the propriety of action he has already taken. See Chattahoochee Bancorp v. Roberts, 203 Ga.App. 405, 406, 416 S.E.2d 875 (1992). Additionally, Enron maintains, there must be two interested parties asserting adverse claims. See Action for a Clean Environment v. State of Ga., 217 Ga.App. 384, 457 S.E.2d 273 (1995). Enron claims there were not, since Pokalsky had already taken the job and Pokalsky and Southern could only speculate as to what Enron's position might be.
(a) Declaratory relief is available where a legal judgment is sought that would control or direct future action. Atlanta Cas. Co. v. Fountain, 262 Ga. 16, 17, 413 S.E.2d 450 (1992). The declaratory judgment statute is construed liberally. Id. At the time the lawsuit in this case was filed, Pokalsky and Southern were uncertain whether their employment could legally continue into the future. This is not an improper use of the declaratory relief procedure. See generally Jackson & Coker, Inc. v. Hart, 261 Ga. 371, 372(1), 373(2), 405 S.E.2d 253 (1991); Beckman v. Cox Broadcasting Corp., 250 Ga. 127, 128, 296 S.E.2d 566 (1982).
(b) Moreover, while OCGA § 9-4-2(a) is limited to "actual controversies," OCGA § 9-4-2(b)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carson v. Obor Holding Co.
...unenforceable as to information that is not a trade secret”) (citation and footnote omitted); Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp. v. Pokalsky, 227 Ga.App. 727, 730(3), 490 S.E.2d 136 (1997) (same). (b) The Operating Agreement's nonsolicitation covenant states: While he shall serve as a Di......
-
HULCHER SERVICES v. RJ CORMAN R. CO.
...not be followed because it flagrantly contravenes the public policy of Georgia in this regard. See Enron Capital &c. Corp. v. Pokalsky, 227 Ga.App. 727, 730(3), 490 S.E.2d 136 (1997). This case is distinguishable from Iero v. Mohawk Finishing Products, supra at 671, 534 S.E.2d 136, because ......
-
Lapolla Indus., Inc. v. Hess
...of the declaratory judgment statute have been met. Similar circumstances were present in Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp. v. Pokalsky, 227 Ga.App. 727, 490 S.E.2d 136 (1997), where an individual and his current employer were uncertain as to the legal right to continue their employment ......
-
Department of Human Resources v. Citibank
...supra at 18, 413 S.E.2d 450; Ins. Center v. Hamilton, 218 Ga. 597, 600, 129 S.E.2d 801 (1963); Enron Capitol &c. Corp. v. Pokalsky, 227 Ga.App. 727, 729(1), 490 S.E.2d 136 (1997); Jahncke Svc. v. Dept. of Transp., 134 Ga.App. 106, 107-108(2), 213 S.E.2d 150 This is not a case in which decla......
-
Restrictions on Post-employment Competition by an Executive Under Georgia Law - Steven E. Harbour
...(1977); Hulcher Servs., Inc. v. R.J. Corman R.R., 247 Ga. App. 486, 543 S.E.2d 461 (2000); Enron Capital & Trade Res. Corp. v. Pokalsky, 227 Ga. App. 727, 490 S.E.2d 136 (1997). On the other hand, a Georgia court will honor a choice of forum provision. Iero v. Mohawk Finishing Prods., Inc.,......
-
Business Associations - Paul A. Quiros, Lynn S. Scott, and James F. Brumsey
...543 S.E.2d at 465 (citing Nasco, Inc. v. Gimbert, 239 Ga. 675, 238 S.E.2d 368 (1977)). 194. Id. (citing Enron Capital Corp. v. Pokalsky, 227 Ga. App. 727, 490 S.E.2d 136 (1997)). 195. Id. at 490-93, 543 S.E.2d at 467-68. 196. Id. at 491, 543 S.E.2d at 466. 197. Id. (citing Rollins Protectiv......
-
Commercial Law - Robert A. Weber, Jr.
...Id. 139. 227 Ga. App. 262, 488 S.E.2d 760 (1997). 140. Id. at 263-64, 488 S.E.2d at 761-62. 141. Id. at 264, 488 S.E.2d at 762. 142. 227 Ga. App. 727, 490 S.E.2d 136 (1997). 143. Id. at 728, 730, 490 S.E.2d at 138, 139. 144. Id. at 730, 490 S.E.2d at 139. 145. Id. 146. Id. 147. 230 Ga. App.......
-
New Growth Industry: Racing to Georgia Courts Over Non-competition Agreements
...(explaining Georgia law on analyzing choice of law provisions in NCAs). 30. See, e.g., Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp. v. Polasky, 227 Ga. App. 727, 490 S.E.2d 136, 138 (1997) holding that a declaratory judgment is available where a legal judgment is sought that would control or direc......