Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00720/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00720-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

JDA SOFTWARE, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

TOM BISSETT, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-720-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction (doc. 2), defendant's

response, and plaintiff's reply. On May 18, 2007, we held an evidentiary hearing on plaintiff's

application. These are our findings and conclusions under Rule 52(a), Fed. R. Civ. P. 

JDA is a software provider. Bissett was an employee of JDA subject to a non-compete

and confidentiality agreement. Bissett left JDA and joined SAP which is one of the specifically

listed competitors in JDA's non-compete agreement. JDA seeks to enjoin Bissett from

working at SAP in any of the functions listed in the non-compete agreement. 

The agreement prohibits Bissett from working for six major competitors, including SAP,

in seven industry segments, including retail and manufacturing. JDA does not claim any loss

of clients and does not claim that Bissett actually revealed confidences. JDA fears these

consequences in the future. 

Case 2:07-cv-00720-FJM Document 36 Filed 05/30/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Bissett claims that he is not soliciting any of his former customers, is not selling any

competing product or services, and has breached no confidences. He contends that he sold

software at JDA, but sells implementation services at SAP. He claims that he did not work in

the retail business at JDA but does so at SAP. Bissett further contends that the non-compete

agreement is overly broad and unenforceable under Arizona law. He claims that the geographic

scope covering the entire United States is too expansive and the temporal scope of one year

is too long. Moreover, he claims that the interests sought to be protected by the non-compete

agreement remain protected.

One seeking a preliminary injunction must show either (1) a likelihood of success on

the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or (2) the existence of serious questions

on the merits and the balance of hardships tips in favor of the moving party. Andreiu v.

Ashcroft, 253 F.3d 477 (9th Cir. 2001).

We find that at this stage of the proceedings there is insufficient evidence to suggest

that Bissett is actually competing with JDA. Nor is there any evidence that he has breached

the confidentiality agreement. He is working in a segment (retail), for a specifically listed

competitor (SAP). Thus he appears to be technically in violation of the non-compete

agreement. However, we find and conclude that the interests sought to be protected by that

agreement are not being compromised by Bissett's employment with SAP. Instead, JDA

appears to be attempting to enforce the letter of the agreement without any evidence that its

purpose or spirit is being violated. Bissett's contentions that the agreement is over broad have

some merit. In addition, because such agreements tend to interfere with competition, they are

not to be enforced without the need to prevent real concrete harm. 

Under these circumstances, JDA has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits

and has not shown that it will suffer irreparable harm if the injunctive relief if not granted.

Moreover, even if serious questions going to the merits of the claim are raised, JDA has not

shown that the balance of hardships favors it. The harm JDA claims is speculative while the

harm to Bissett if enjoined may jeopardize his career. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED 

Case 2:07-cv-00720-FJM Document 36 Filed 05/30/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

DENYING plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief (doc. 2). 

DATED this 30th day of May, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00720-FJM Document 36 Filed 05/30/07 Page 3 of 3