2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-12-2005 

# K eys t one D edic at ed v

. B ar tmes s P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-2441

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Keys t one D e d icat e d v

. B ar tme s s " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1204. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1204NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL I N TH E UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS

F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT C as e N o. 04- 2441 K E Y S T O N E D E D IC A T E D L O G IS T IC S C O M P A N Y , L .L .C ., A p p e llan t, v. M I CH A EL B A RT M ESS, FLO RE N CE BA RT M ESS, J A M ES B A RT M ESS

AND GOT I T AND GO NE E XPR ES S , I NC.

_______________ O n a p p e a l f

ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D i s t r i ctC our tC i v. N o. 02- 397 M agi s t r at e J udge: H on. Fr anci s X . C ai azz a

_______________ Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o L A R 34. 1( a)

M ay6, 2005

_______________ Be f o r e : M c KE E , S M I T H, a n d VAN AN T WER P E N C i r cui tJudges

( Fi l ed: M ay12, 2005)

____________________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________________ S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge . T hi s di ver s i t ydi s put e r equi r es thi s C our tt o r evi ew the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entt o a form erempl oy ee a ft erhi s empl oy ercompl ai ned thathe had2

br eac hed a non- compet i t i on agr eement . T he D i s t r i ctC our thel d t hatthe non- compet i t i on agr eementw as unenfor cea bl e underPenns y l vani a l aw beca us e i tdi d notpr ot ectanyof th e e m p lo y e r’ s le g itim a te b u s in e s s in te re s ts . W e a g re e . I. A ppel l ant , K ey s t one D edi cat ed Logi s t i cs C om pany , L . L . C . ( K ey s t one) arr anges fr ei ghtt r ans por t at i on and pr ovi des l ogi s t i cs cons ul t i ng fori t s cl i ent s . K ey s t one hi r ed A pp el l ee, M i chael B artm ess, i n F ebruary20 01 as a traffi c/ op erat i on s coordi nator . A s a condi t i on of hi s empl oym ent , B ar t m es s s i gned a non- compet i t i on agr eementpr om i s i ng 1) n o t to c o m p e te w ith K e y sto n e f o r tw o y e a rs w ith in f

if tym iles o f

P itt sb u rg h , P e n n sy lv a n ia an d ev eryloca ti o n to w h ich B artm ess w as a ssign ed to w o rk, 2) n o r use an yo f K ey ston e’s pr opr i et aryi nform at i on ort r ade s ecr et s , 3) nors ol i ci tanyof K ey s t one’ s cus t om er s or s u p p lie rs f

o r t w o y e a rs . D ur i ng and af

t erhi s empl oym entw i t h K ey s t one, w hi ch oper at es fr om Pi t t s bur gh, Penns y l vani a, B ar t m es s w or ked fr om hi s hom e i n O l athe, K ans as . I n A ugus t2001, B artm ess vol un t ari l yres i gn ed h i s j ob w i t h K ey st on e and , w i t h the hel p o f his parent s, o p e n e d a b u s in e s s c a lle d G o t I t a n d G o n e E x p re s s , In c . T h e p a rties a g re e th a t B a rtm e ss c a m e a n d lef t K e y sto n e w ith a sin g le c lien t, I nt er s t at e B r ands C orpor at i on ( I B C ) . T he part i es fur t heragr ee thatdur i ng hi s t enur e at K ey s t one, I B C w as B ar t m es s ’ s per s onal cus t om er . Fi nal l y , the part i es agr ee that K e y sto n e ’s o n lyc o n n e c tio n w ith K a n sa s w a s v ia B a rtm e ss . B a rtm e ss c o n tin u e s toT h e D i s t r i c tC o u r te x e r c i s e d s u b j e c tm a t t e rj u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S . C . § 1 3 3 2 . We 1 exer ci s e j ur i s di ct i on overt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fi nal or derunder28 U . S. C . § 1291. 3 s ervi ce I B C t hr ough hi s company , G otI tand G one Expre s s . K ey s t one has no oper at i ons i n K ans as and, s i nce Bar t m es s l eft , has nottr i ed t o oper at e ther e. II. “W e e x erc ise p lena ryrev iew o v er the D istri ct C o u rt ’s gra n t of su m m ary j udgm ent , ” A br am s on v. W i l l i am P at t ers on C ol l ege of N ew Jer s ey , 260 F. 3d 265, 276 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ), a n d a p p ly th e s a m e s ta n d a rd th a t th e D is tr ic t C o u rt s h o u ld h a v e a p p lie d . Id . A c o u rt sh o u ld g ra n t su m m a ryju d g m e n t “if th e p lea d in g s, d e p o sitio n s, a n sw e rs to interrog atories, an d ad m issi o n s o n fil e, t o g ethe r w ith the a ff idav it s, if an y , sh o w that there i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand thatthe movi ng par t yi s ent i t l ed t o a jud g m en t as a m att er o f law . ” F ed . R . C iv. P. 56 (c). 1 III . W e af fi r m t he dec i s i on of the D i s t r i ctC our tfors ubs t ant i al l ythe s ame r eas ons sta ted b yth e M a g istra te J u d g e in h is w e ll-re a so n e d o p in io n . C o v e n a n ts n o t to c o m p e te underPenns y l vani a l aw ar e enf or cea bl e onl yas r eas onabl ynece s s aryt o pr ot ectthe e m p lo y e r’ s le g itim a te b u s in e s s in te re s ts . Hes s v. G ebhar d & Co. I nc . , 808 A . 2d 912, 920 ( Pa. 2002) . Such i nt er es t s gener al l yi ncl ude tr ade s ecr et s , confi dent i al i nform at i on, good w ill, a n d u n iq u e o r e x tr a o rd in a ry sk ills . Id . H er e, t he M agi s t r at e J udge corr ect l ydet erm i ned thatB art m es s acqui r ed no tr ade s ecr et s orconfi dent i al i nform at i on w hi l e atK ey s t one. N ordoes K ey s t one have a4

c o g n iza b le in ter e st in B a rtm e ss ’s r e latio n sh ip w ith IB C , as K e y sto n e c o n c e d e s th a t it s relati o n sh ip w ith IB C w as stri ctl ythro u g h B artm ess. F inally , B artm ess d id n o t acq u ir e a n yu n iq u e o r e x tra o rd in a rysk ill s a t K e y sto n e . A s n o n e o f K e y sto n e ’s le g iti m a te bus i nes s i nt er es t s t hus ar e ats t ake i n t hi s di s put e, the M agi s t r at e J udge corr ect l yhel d that t he K ey st on e-B artm ess non-com pete agreem ent i s unen forceable – ei t her against B a rt m e s s , h is p a re n ts , o r G o t I t a n d G o n e E x p re s s , In c . See W el l span Health, Y

ork H os pi tal , 8 6 9 A .2 d ___ (P a . S u p e r. C t. 2 0 0 5 ). III . T he or derof the D i s t r i ctC our tw i l l be af fi r m ed.