Ormco Corp. v. Johns
Decision Date | 02 May 2003 |
Citation | 869 So.2d 1109 |
Parties | ORMCO CORPORATION v. Timothy M. JOHNS. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Joseph B. Mays, Jr., John E. Goodman, T. Matthew Miller, and John C. Neiman, Jr., of Bradley Arant Rose & White, LLP, Birmingham, for appellant.
Michael D. Freeman and Ed R. Haden of Balch & Bingham, LLP, Birmingham, for appellee.
Ormco Corporation appeals the Jefferson Circuit Court's denial of its request for a preliminary injunction stemming from Ormco's action against its former salesperson, Timothy M. Johns, for his alleged breach of a noncompetition agreement. We remand.
Ormco manufactures and sells orthodontic supplies. From 1999 to August 2002, Johns was employed with Ormco as a regional manager with the exclusive rights to sell Ormco products to orthodontists in a region covering parts of three states: the Florida panhandle, the northern part of Mississippi, and all of Alabama. The names and addresses of the approximately 125 orthodontists in this region were readily available to the general public. Johns would make sales visits to those orthodontists, and between 80 to 90 of them purchased some of their orthodontic supplies from Ormco. Ormco provided Johns with an expense account by which he could build business relationships with the orthodontists through taking them out for meals and purchasing gifts.
Before his employment with Ormco, Johns had had no experience with orthodontics or with the sales of orthodontic supplies. Accordingly, when he first became an Ormco employee, Ormco trained Johns in the orthodontic-supplies industry through seminars as well as through audiotaped and written materials.
In August 2002, Johns accepted a job as a salesperson with GAC International ("GAC"), one of Ormco's primary competitors. GAC solicited business from the orthodontists in the same region in which Johns had worked as a salesperson with Ormco. In his new position with GAC, Johns sells orthodontic supplies to orthodontists in virtually the same region he covered as a salesperson with Ormco. After accepting the position with GAC, Johns began contacting orthodontists in his former Ormco region, informing them that he is now with GAC.
Upon learning that Johns had taken a position with GAC, Ormco sued Johns, alleging various claims relating to an employment agreement Johns had signed with Ormco.1 The employment agreement contains the following noncompetition agreement, which Ormco alleges Johns is breaching by his activities as a GAC salesperson:
Along with its complaint, Ormco filed a motion for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") and a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking to prevent Johns from violating his covenant not to compete during the course of the litigation. The TRO was granted, but was later dissolved and was supplanted by an order from the trial judge prohibiting Johns from "contacting or soliciting business from Ormco customers that he solicited, contacted, or did business with while employed at Ormco."
Following expedited discovery, both sides submitted briefs on Ormco's motion for a preliminary injunction. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court requested additional briefing on whether Ormco had an adequate remedy at law and whether Ormco could demonstrate immediate and irreparable injury. Following the submission of briefs on those issues, the trial court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that Ormco had failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate irreparable injury. Ormco appeals. See Ala. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) ( ).
Perley v. Tapscan, Inc., 646 So.2d 585, 587 (Ala.1994). Here, the trial court stated as its reason for refusing to grant the preliminary injunction that Ormco failed to produce sufficient evidence that without the injunction it would suffer irreparable injury stemming from Johns's activities during the litigation of Ormco's action against Johns.2 Id.
"`Irreparable injury' is an injury that is not redressable in a court of law through an award of money damages." 646 So.2d at 587 (citing Triple J Cattle, Inc. v. Chambers, 551 So.2d 280 (Ala. 1989)). However, "courts will not use the extraordinary power of injunctive relief merely to allay an apprehension of a possible injury; the injury must be imminent and irreparable in a court at law." Martin v. City of Linden, 667 So.2d 732, 736 (Ala. 1995); see also Borey v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 934 F.2d 30, 34 (2d Cir.1991) ( ). The primary focus of the parties' briefs to this Court is their disagreement over the nature of the evidence required to demonstrate "irreparable injury."
Ormco contends that irreparable injury should be inferred when a violation of a noncompetition agreement is alleged and when there has been an initial showing that the agreement is enforceable and that the employer has a protectible interest. Accordingly, Ormco argues that if such a showing is made, irreparable injury is established and it need present no further evidence as to that element of injunctive relief. Ormco acknowledges that this Court has not explicitly adopted this inference of irreparable injury in a case involving the alleged violation of a noncompetition agreement; however, Ormco cites several decisions of other jurisdictions that appear to indicate that the courts in those jurisdictions either explicitly use that inference or at least appear to be willing to find irreparable injury easily established in a case involving the alleged violation of a noncompetition agreement: Ticor Title Ins. Co. v. Cohen, 173 F.3d 63, 69 (2d Cir.1999) (); JAK Prods., Inc. v. Wiza, 986 F.2d 1080, 1084 (7th Cir.1993) ( ); Highdata Software Corp. v. Kothandan, 160 F.Supp.2d 167, 168 (D.N.H.2001) ( ); American Express Fin. Advisors, Inc. v. Scott, 955 F.Supp. 688, 693 (N.D.Tex.1996) ( ); Harrison v. Albright, 40 Colo.App. 227, 231-32, 577 P.2d 302, 305 (1977) (); McRand, Inc. v. Van Beelen, 138 Ill.App.3d 1045, 1054, 486 N.E.2d 1306, 1313, 93 Ill.Dec. 471, 478 (1985) (); Osage Glass, Inc. v. Donovan, 693 S.W.2d 71, 75 (Mo.1985) ().
Ormco points out that this Court has never held a trial court in error for finding that an employer demonstrated irreparable harm stemming from an employee's breach of a noncompetition agreement, so as to justify a preliminary injunction. See, e.g., Seymour v. Buckley, 628 So.2d 554 (Ala.1993); Gross v. QMS, Inc., 613 So.2d 331 (Ala.1993); and Harkness v. Scottsboro Newspapers, Inc., 529 So.2d 1000, 1003 (Ala.1988). However, this fact is of little persuasive effect, given that this Court reviews a trial court's ruling on a request for a preliminary injunction with great deference to the decision of the trial court. See Seymour, 628 So.2d at 557 ( ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Facebook, Inc. v. K.G.S.
...plaintiff bears the burden of producing evidence sufficient to support the issuance of a preliminary injunction. Ormco Corp. v. Johns, 869 So. 2d 1109, 1113 (Ala. 2003). The requirements for a preliminary injunction are well known:" ‘ "Before entering a preliminary injunction, the trial cou......
-
DJR Assocs., LLC v. Hammonds
..."then a rebuttable inference arises that the employer will suffer irreparable injury unless an injunction issues." Ormco Corp. v. Johns , 869 So.2d 1109, 1119 (Ala. 2003). Protectable interests of the former employer include "valuable customer relationships and goodwill that have been estab......
-
BARBER v. CORNERSTONE Cmty. OUTREACH INC.
...The plaintiff bears the burden of producing evidence sufficient to support the issuance of a preliminary injunction. Ormco Corp. v. Johns, 869 So.2d 1109, 1113 (Ala.2003). The requirements for a preliminary injunction are well known: "`Before entering a preliminary injunction, the trial cou......
-
State ex rel. Marshall v. Ty Green's Massage Therapy, Inc.
...LLC, and OAX, LLC v. King Metal Recycling and Processing Corporation, 129 So. 3d 272, 275-276 (Ala. 2013), quoting Ormco Corp. v. Johns, 869 So. 2d 1109 (Ala. 2003)."The Court finds that the State of Alabama has failed to carry its burden of proof on at least two of the foregoing elements. ......
-
Alabama's Appellate Standards of Review in Civil Cases
...by the injunction would not unreasonably outweigh the benefit accruing to the [party seeking the injunction]."' "Ormco Corp. v. Johns, 869 So. 2d 1109, 1113 (Ala. 2003) (quoting Perley v. Tapscan, Inc., 646 So. 2d 585, 587 (Ala. 1994)). "... 'We review the [trial court's] legal rulings de n......