the middle of tax season and it was filed along with a motion for temporary restraining order and the luminary injunction those were supported by an affidavit david and a memorandum a memorandum of law the defendant filed a motion to dismiss that is not the on there was a hearing held at on the motion for temporary restraining order but at that hearing the live testimony was heard on trial court heard only argument from counsel and before any any witnesses could be sworn announced as r illinois complaint contains minimum allegations that could give rise to a cause of action should not be dismissed complaint alleging a violation of the restrictive covenant in an employment contract must contain an allegation that parties and entered into a valid agreement contain validly found that based on the evidence that that it had front of it as i said no no hearing was held as to that issue and so the court only have only i believe the allegations in the complaint were sufficient to justify that she had in front of her and she could either accept it and she could accept it and take that employment or she can go somewhere else that yes it was a contract in the kitchen that doesn't necessarily mean that it's on enforceable th valid contract and so even though there are it wasn't taken a leave earlier contract i believe that it would be enforceable and in order for the court to find it on him for simple i believe they need to have a hearing based on those issues to hear hear more of the of the particulars on how it was signed and the position of the parties to to determine the bargaining power of each party in the respective positions in this case the complaint alleged that there was a valid contract that alleged affair was restrictive covenant of specific restrictive covenant limits to the defendant from soliciting and providing services to company clients and that was fine in the contract for a period of two years it also prohibited her from soliciting employees to work for her in a competing business for a period of one years this contract does not limit her ability to compete with h and r block she was well within her rights to open is remand the case back to trial court to have a hearing on these exact issues i think that the judge the trial court judge needs to have all of this the facts and circumstances in front of it based on live testimony and evidence before it's clients the justification for having a non computer it's few to none and i compete a non solicitation and none provided services to company clients cause in that contract it's going to explain there would be testimony about retention of clients and why it's a proprietary interest of h and r block that they have an interest in that they should be able to tact and it'll explain some more of the circumstances regarding her continuing her continuing employment with h lou she she did her first one year contract i don't know if it was in two thousand and three or for tax season two thousand and three up and through the year that she stopped working and so there's a a relationship there she was an a management position and so she's privy to a larger amount of confidential business information for all clients and i think it will just talk about generally why a tax preparer in general  why it's justified to have this type of of restrictive covenant or attack her it's a very intimate thing to have somebody do your taxes for you disclosing all of your income information for the u s if it's a  longstanding arrangement they know what your income has been for a period of years i'm it's very important that you get it correct and it's very important that you that you are fully honest with them so you get your maximum refund minimize taxes pay so i  personal information based on her position as that i believe the titles office for mayor but that she did in excess of i believe seven hundred tax returns for the previous year those people would be the ones that she'd be prohibited from from soliciting and then also she had access to the database for that particular location with all of the business information she would be persistent from downloading that list of clients phone numbers social prohibited from providing services to him if she were and his information based on her role as office for mater what what the contract prohibits her from doing is downloading a client list of information that they  printing off a copy of the evidence that she did that there is some indication that she did that but that's not in the record yet because it was disposed of before that before that could come out so yes if she had downloaded that list industries it's a trade secrets case but it was held that that the individual who head they were talking about industrial fans and it was they were attempting to say that the design for this particular fan that this former employee had again was a trade secret and the court held that he couldn't use the items that he had downloaded that he copied the sketches the measurements the drawings for his new employer even though some of those items could have been learned through other many other ways you could he could have purchased the former employer's fan to take measurements and then reverse engineer sent but they said because he had taken those documents he'd taken those drawings he wasn't permitted to use though that information because it was a trade secret even though they had he could have achieved the same result using different means and i think that's the same here were there is there would be an allegation that she and this is a client list with with proprietary information with with personal business information of these individuals that she takes from h and r block and then uses that so those are the people that the i believe this contract is restrictive covenants would procedurally i believe that this is this case would be the same as if the trial court received a curse a copy of the complaint reviewed it read it and then without hearing any additional information i believe that the the motion for p injunction the response to that filed by the defendant are irrelevant in the court's terminations the that this is not reporting on track because it's the only sworn statement it's the same as if you just mail this mailed us a copy of an order dismissing the what rights and remedies what point of some type of the normal litigation process happens every day and it should have happened in this case but it's not what happened in the states no answer no five testimony no what hearing held the court simply say the court level but on all addresses briefly the defendant claims that there is no consideration in this contract and based on the no consideration of restrictive covenants on forceful the i don't believe that the cases cited by the defendant in this case support that conclusion the first case is brown vs brown sided and defendant brief but they claim states that the seven month seven months of employment is insufficient consideration to support the restricted government signed the employee begin competing in litigation ensued i believe that that situation is different from our current situation and the current situation is an employment contract for a finite period of time it is tax season two thousand  and so between time when the contract signed in the end of tax season is one hundred percent of what the offer of employment was that offer was made the defendant accepted that offer and the parties to fill their obligations that's a consideration she she worked one hundred percent of the contract even though and the period is shorter than seven months because it was one hundred percent of the agreed upon bargain i believe that's sufficient consideration to go back to last will they say that  because it was one hundred percent performance by the employer i believe that that justifies of finding that there was consideration in this contract offer substance consideration air force and force the second insurance case that case they claim stands for the prosecution three months continued employment continued employment is insufficient consideration that case was a little bit different it was an amendment to a prior non and the court found that the the employee the defendant didn't change his position he didn't give anything up they renegotiated a new change from a two year non compete period of a twelve month period and so the court found that his position never changed those people for whom she worked individually personally i would read this as that it's for the people that she had direct contact prepared or electronically transmitted and  electronically transmitted by so doesn't it mean that she did something for these people but i did services for them so that is if you didn't have any contact with john smith's hardware store how does how does john smith going to be covered under this circumstance i believe that in whole is managing the as the direct supervisor of the people who actually did that work that that work would be imputed to her because of her role as a supervisor in those rather expensive business of it if it is an expansive definition i think it's justified but even if it's only women to the people she directly provided services to that's legitimate interest in that but this strain should be narrow and we have a contract for one hundred four days which they're going to impose a one minute to your respect and it's the only consideration question i'm going to can you answer that question for me and she provided a service for bill jones and therefore she could take them johns it becomes almost impossible to separate all these people except for the ones you actually in analyzing some other contracts they look at the geographic restriction you impute the type of geographic restriction based on the specific clients same thing i believe applies on the term it's a contract for only one hundred  through a full so the period that they're restricted from is to tax seasons and change for employment for one taxis i think that that makes it sound much more reasonable to exactly the same thing that it is but it doesn't sound so agreed so there's and i didn't believe that it went to the basis of the complaint and so i was citing illinois law that the trial court in putin that no that that everything implies illinois law there's implies