Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03517/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03517-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

CLEAR CHANNEL OUTDOOR, INC.,, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

PAUL R. WISS, and JCDecaux

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-3517-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it Clear Channel's application for preliminary injunction (doc.

2), Wiss and JCDecaux's response, and Clear Channel's reply. We held an evidentiary

hearing on the application on December 16, 2005. These are our findings and rulings under

Rule 52(a), Fed. R. Civ. P.

This is an action brought by Clear Channel against Wiss and JCDecaux seeking to

enjoin Wiss from performing services for JCDecaux in the New York area that "are

substantially the same services as [Wiss] provided to [Clear Channel] under the existing

employee non-competition agreement" between Wiss and Clear Channel. Clear Channel also

seeks to enjoin JCDecaux from interfering with its contract with Wiss. 

In granting or denying preliminary injunctive relief, we look to the probability of

success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or the existence of serious

Case 2:05-cv-03517-FJM Document 28 Filed 12/21/05 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 -

questions and the balance of hardships. See Preminger v. Principi, 422 F.3 815, 823-24 (9th

Cir. 2005).

The fundamental factual dispute that divides the parties is whether Wiss' work for

JCDecaux is substantially the same as the work he performed for Clear Channel. On the

evidence before us, we find that Wiss' major contribution to Clear Chanel was in acquiring

and leasing real property and applying for the appropriate permits to put billboards on the

property. JCDecaux's contract with the New York Port Authority does not require the

acquisition or leasing of real property. All billboards will be put up on property already

within the control of the New York Port Authority. Moreover, to the extent that there are

any permit requirements, the permitting process will be that of the New York Port Authority

rather than a private entity. Thus, while it is true that the result of Wiss' work for JCDecaux

may affect Clear Channel's business in the New York area, these competitive injuries are not

within the scope of paragraph 4(e) of the non-competition agreement. Although there are

some similarities between the work Wiss performed at Clear Channel and the work he will

be performing for JCDecaux , we cannot say that they are "substantially the same" within the

meaning of paragraph 4(e).

Turning then to the question of hardship, we find that the loss Clear Channel will

suffer flows from the loss of the New York Port Authority contract and not Wiss' departure

from Clear Channel and employment by JCDecaux. Moreover, even if the services were

substantially the same within the meaning of the contract, paragraph 4(e) would protect Clear

Channel for only twelve months, and not for the full ten year term of the New York Port

Authority contract. We thus do not find that Clear Channel will be irreparably injured in the

absence of injunctive relief. On the other hand, we do find that Wiss would be damaged if

he could not work in the business in which he has skills. Moreover, the public interest is

certainly advanced by the free flow of goods and services, and not anti-competitive

agreements. 

In light of these findings, we conclude that Clear Channel has failed to show a

probability of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury. Moreover, Clear

Case 2:05-cv-03517-FJM Document 28 Filed 12/21/05 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 -

Channel has also failed to show the existence of serious questions and the balance of

hardships tips in its favor. Thus, under either prong of the standard, Clear Channel has failed

to show that it is entitled to preliminary injunctive relief under Rule 65, Fed. R. Civ. P.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED DENYING Clear Channel's application for

preliminary injunction (doc. 2).

DATED this 20th day of December, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-03517-FJM Document 28 Filed 12/21/05 Page 3 of 3