## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-3465

___________ Guy Carpenter & Company, Inc., * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the John B. Collins Associates, Inc.; * District of Minnesota. Stephen Underdal; Todd Mo ckler; * [UNPUBLISHED] Randy Floden; Robert Roehrig; * Hannah Kuhn, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: May 1, 2006 Filed: May 15, 2006

___________ Before BYE, HEANEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. When four clients followed five employ ees to a competing firm, Guy Carpenter & Company, Inc. (Carpenter) sued to enforce non-solicitation agreements between two of the former employees, Stephen U nderdal and Todd Mockler, and Carpenter's predecessor. Carpenter sought to enjoin Underdal and Mockler from soliciting any of Carpenter's clients and to prevent a ll five employees from using or disclosing confidential information they obtained whileemployed with Carpenter. The district court denied the request for a prelimin ary injunction concluding Carpenter likely-2- could not enforce the non-solicitation agreemen ts and had failed to show irreparable harm. We affirm in part, vacate the district court's order in part, and remand for further proceedings.
Because "the absence of a finding of i rreparable injury is alone sufficient ground for [denying a] preliminary injunction, " Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc. , 640 F.2d 109, 114 n.9 (8th Cir. 1981), we decline to addr ess whether Carpenter can enforce the non-solicitation agreements Underd al and Mockler signed with Carpenter's predecessor. We agree with the district c ourt damages are an adequate remedy for any breach because clients who leave Carpenter can be identified and the damages resulting from the loss of those clients can be calculated. See , e.g. , Gelco Corp. v. Coniston Partners , 811 F.2d 414, 420 (8th Cir. 1987) (indicating a party has not shown irreparable harm if its alleged injuries can be remedied in a suit for money damages). The other damages alleged by Carpe nter are speculative at this stage, e.g. , Minn. Ass'n of Health Care Facilities, In c. v. Minn. Dep't of Pub. Welfare , 602 F.2d 150, 154 (8th Cir. 1979) ("[T]he speculative na ture of the threatened harm support[s] the denial of injunctive relief."), and thus th e district court did not abuse its discretion in denying that part of the request for preliminary injunction which sought to stop Mockler and Underdal from breaching the non-solicitation agreements.
Appellees concede, however, the distri ct court failed to address Carpenter's request to prevent the use or disclosure of its confidential informa tion, and suggest the district court inadvertently dissolved that portion of its preliminary injunction motion. The parties inform us proceedings are underw ay in the district court to address the request for injunctive relief as it relates to th e alleged use or disclo sure of confidential information. We therefore vacate the di strict court's order denying the motion for preliminary injunction as it related to the use or disclosure of confidential information, and remand for further proceedings.

______________________________