Watlow Elec. Mfg. Co. v. Wrob, 63530
| Decision Date | 07 June 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 63530,63530 |
| Parties | WATLOW ELECTRIC MANUFACTURING COMPANY, et al., Respondent. v. Ronald WROB, Jr. a/k/a Mike Wrob/H.E.A.T., Inc., Appellant, |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Stephen M. Hereford, St. Louis, for appellant.
Edward M. Goldenhersh, St. Louis, for respondent.
This appeal arises out of an action to vacate or modify an injunction which was originally ordered on June 4, 1991. The appellants, Ronald M. Wrob, Jr. (Mike Wrob), and HEAT, Inc., were enjoined, for a period of five years, from competing with the respondents, Watlow Electric Manufacturing Company (Watlow) and its wholly owned subsidiary, Pacific Heater Corporation (Pacific). Mike Wrob and HEAT filed a motion to modify or vacate the injunction. The trial court denied their motion, found Wrob in civil contempt, and awarded attorney fees to Watlow and Pacific. Wrob and HEAT appeal. We dismiss the appeal without prejudice as premature.
Wrob is the president of HEAT, a Missouri corporation, originally incorporated by Mike Wrob and his father, Ronald M. Wrob, Sr. Mike Wrob and Ronald Wrob incorporated HEAT when both were still employed by Pacific. They tried to conceal information concerning the formation of HEAT from Pacific and Watlow. While still employed at Pacific, Mike and Ronald Wrob were able to use false identities, a lease agreement that they entered on Pacific's behalf with a fictitious entity that they created, and forged signatures to misappropriate personal property belonging to Watlow and Pacific, including: product drawings, specifications, test data, customer lists, sales information, marketing information, and special equipment drawings and specifications. This material, which included Watlow and Pacific trade secrets, was being used to begin manufacturing products for HEAT, products which would be in direct competition with Watlow and Pacific.
Other than Pacific, Watlow's wholly owned subsidiaries include Watlow St. Louis, Inc., Watlow Industries, Inc., and Watlow AOV, Inc. These entities are collectively known as the Watlow Group. The group member corporations share their trade secrets. After learning that Mike and Ronald Wrob had misappropriated several of these secrets, Watlow and Pacific entered into a release and settlement agreement with Mike Wrob, Ronald Wrob and HEAT. A proposed order for an injunction and judgment and a stipulation of facts was attached to and incorporated in the agreement. The settlement agreement provided, if Mike Wrob, Ronald Wrob or HEAT violated the judgment, they would be liable to Watlow and Pacific for attorney fees incurred in enforcing the judgment. An order of permanent judgment, in accordance with the settlement agreement, was entered on June 4, 1991. Essentially, the judgment provided that Mike and Ronald Wrob were enjoined from competing with any member of the Watlow Group for five years.
In February of 1992, Mike Wrob and HEAT manufactured and sold 200 thermocouples to C.E.M. Electric. C.E.M. Electric had been a customer of Pacific when Mike Wrob was employed there. Thermocouples are a temperature measuring device which protects heaters from over heating. Members of the Watlow Group sell and manufacture thermocouples and sell and manufacture products which contain thermocouples. After this transaction, counsel for Watlow and Pacific sent a letter advising Wrob that the 1991 judgment prohibited him from selling or manufacturing thermocouples.
Wrob and HEAT then brought this motion to modify or vacate the 1991 judgment. 1 Watlow and Pacific filed a motion which sought to hold Wrob in contempt and recover attorney fees incurred in enforcing the original judgment. The trial court denied Wrob and HEAT's motion. The court found that Wrob and HEAT were prohibited from selling or manufacturing thermocouples by the original injunction. The court purported to grant Watlow and Pacific's motion for contempt and awarded them $56,374 in attorney fees. Wrob and HEAT appeal from this order.
On appeal Wrob and HEAT complain of four errors. First, they argue that the trial court erred when it failed to modify or dissolve the order entered in 1991. They also claim that the court erred by finding that the 1991 order applied to the sale of thermocouples. Finally, Wrob and HEAT argue that the order for attorneys' fees and the order of contempt must be reversed.
In order for an appeal to lie, there must be a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Marriage of Crow and Gilmore
...878 (Mo.App.1996); Crenshaw v. Refuse Service, Inc., 908 S.W.2d 845, 846 (Mo.App.1995); Happy, 903 S.W.2d at 610; Watlow Elec. Mfg. Co. v. Wrob, 878 S.W.2d 63, 65 (Mo.App.1994); Watson, 858 S.W.2d at 842; Yalem v. Yalem, 811 S.W.2d 493, 494 (Mo.App.1991); City of Pagedale v. Taylor, 790 S.W......
-
A.B.C. v. C.L.C.
...principle that a contempt order that fails to provide for punishment is not final and appealable. See, e.g., Wrob v. Watlow Elec. Mfg. Co., 878 S.W.2d 63, 65 (Mo.App. E.D.1994); Muegler v. Muegler, 784 S.W.2d 839, 841 (Mo.App. E.D.1990). In the instant case, however, the trial court express......
-
Missouri Hosp. Ass'n v. Air Conservation Com'n of State of Mo.
...for purposes of appeal until that order is enforced by actual incarceration or imposition of a per diem fine. Watlow Elec. Mfg. Co. v. Wrob, 878 S.W.2d 63, 65 (Mo.App.1994). A civil contempt case becomes moot and unappealable if the contemnors purge themselves of the contempt by complying t......
-
Watlow Elec. Mfg. Co. v. Wrob, 66866
...contempt order was not final because the trial court had not issued a warrant of commitment or imposed any fine. Watlow Elec Mfg. Co. v. Wrob, 878 S.W.2d 63 (Mo.App.1994). On August 5, 1994, the trial court entered a second order finding the contempt issue to be moot because Appellants had ......