Genzyme Corp. v. Hanglin, 111919 MASUP, SUCV19843502BLS2

Docket Nº:SUCV19843502BLS2
Opinion Judge:Janet L. Sanders, Justice
Party Name:Genzyme Corporation et al. v. Keith Hanglin et al.
Judge Panel:Judge (with first initial, no space for Sullivan, Dorsey, and Walsh): Sanders, Janet L., J.
Case Date:November 19, 2019
Court:Superior Court of Massachusetts
 
FREE EXCERPT

Genzyme Corporation et al.

v.

Keith Hanglin et al.

No. SUCV19843502BLS2

Superior Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk, Business Litigation Session

November 19, 2019

Judge (with first initial, no space for Sullivan, Dorsey, and Walsh): Sanders, Janet L., J.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Janet L. Sanders, Justice

This is an action seeking enforcement of a noncompetition agreement against the defendant Keith Hanglin, a former employee of the defendant Genzyme Corporation (Genzyme). Hanglin recently resigned from his position as Director of Training in Genzyme’s Business Operations Department and accepted an offer from the defendant BioMarin Pharmaceutical, Inc. (BioMarin) directing account managers in that company’s Hemophilia Business Unit. The case came before this Court on Genzyme’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. In particular, Genzyme seeks an order from this Court preventing Hanglin from starting work at BioMarin. After hearing and careful consideration of the parties’ submissions, this Court denied the Motion in a margin endorsement. This Memorandum is offered by way of a brief explanation.

The legal standard that this Court applies to a request for injunctive relief is well established. A party seeking such relief must show a likelihood of success on the merits of its claim and must further demonstrate that it will suffer irreparable harm without the requested injunctive relief— harm which outweighs any harm to the defendant if the injunction issues. GTE Products Corp. v. Stewart, 414 Mass. 721, 722-23 (1993); Packaging Indus. Group, Inc. v. Cheney, Packaging Indus. Group, Inc. v. Cheney, 380 Mass. 609, 616 (1980). In the instant case, this means that the Court must determine the likelihood that Genzyme will prevail on its claim that Hanglin, in accepting a position with BioMarin, is in breach of a noncompetition agreement that he signed on September 18, 2018 with Genyzme (the Genzyme Agreement). This Court concludes Genzyme has not met its burden of demonstrating a likelihood of success on this claim because enforcement of the Genzyme Agreement is not necessary to protect any legitimate...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP