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Stephen Underdal; Todd Mockler; * [UNPUBLISHED]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 employees to a competing firm, Guy Carpenter

& Company, Inc. (Carpenter) sued to enforce non-solicitation agreements between

two of the former employees, Stephen Underdal and Todd Mockler, and Carpenter's

predecessor. Carpenter sought to enjoin Underdal and Mockler from soliciting any

of Carpenter's clients and to prevent all five employees from using or disclosing

confidential information they obtained while employed with Carpenter. The district

court denied the request for a preliminary injunction concluding Carpenter likely
-2-

could not enforce the non-solicitation agreements 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 irreparable 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 address whether Carpenter can

enforce the non-solicitation agreements Underdal and Mockler signed with Carpenter's

predecessor. We agree with the district court 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 Carpenter are speculative at this stage, e.g.,

Minn. Ass'n of Health Care Facilities, Inc. v. Minn. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 602 F.2d

150, 154 (8th Cir. 1979) ("[T]he speculative nature of the threatened harm support[s]

the denial of injunctive relief."), and thus the 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 district court failed to address Carpenter's

request to prevent the use or disclosure of its confidential information, and suggest the

district court inadvertently dissolved that portion of its preliminary injunction motion.

The parties inform us proceedings are underway in the district court to address the

request for injunctive relief as it relates to the alleged use or disclosure of confidential

information. We therefore vacate the district 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.

______________________________