UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

ZIMMER US INC., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Cause No.: 3:16-CV-8

)

TROY MIRE, )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on the Motion to Dismiss Count I of Plaintiff’s Complaint

and memorandum in support filed by the Defendant, Troy Mire, on March 8, 2016, along with a

supporting memorandum (DE 6 and 7). The Plaintiff, Zimmer US Inc., filed a response in

opposition to the motion on April 8, 2016 (DE 11), and Mire filed a reply brief on April 15, 2016

(DE 12). For the reasons discussed below, the motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

Zimmer hired Mire as a sales representative on August 1, 2013. Complaint, p. 2. Zimmer

manufactures and sells “orthopedic implants and devices and related products, services and

supplies.” Id. Zimmer’s Complaint states that “Mire was retained by Zimmer to market and sell

all Zimmer products, including reconstructive products and trauma products . . . for certain

accounts in Deridder, Leesville and Alexandria, Louisiana.” Id., p. 3. According to the company,

all Zimmer sales representatives “are bound by agreements[,]” id., p. 2, meaning they sign

written employment contracts. Mire signed a “Confidentiality, Non-Competition and NonSolicitation Agreement for Sales Managers and Representatives . . . .” Id., p. 3; Exh. 1. It is this

contract that Zimmer claims Mire breached. Zimmer states that “[o]n or about October 2, 2015,
Mire’s relationship with Zimmer ended.” Id., p. 5. As this lawsuit indicates, the relationship did

not end amicably. That is because Zimmer accuses Mire of taking “certain confidential and

proprietary Zimmer information with him, including client names and addresses, and Zimmer’s

pricing information.” Id., p. 5. As if that weren’t bad enough, Mire then “became employed as an

independent sales representative with Smith & Nephew, a medical equipment manufacturer that

directly competes with Zimmer.” Id. This means that “Mire is currently marketing and selling

Smith & Nephew’s products in direct competition with Zimmer in the Restricted Geographic

Area.” Id. (It is the phrase “Restricted Geographic Area” that is at issue in the present motion to

dismiss, as discussed below.) Zimmer claims that Mire violated his non-compete agreement

when be began his employment with Smith & Nephew, since he “began contacting an unknown

number of Zimmer’s customers, and began soliciting the transfer of their business to Smith &

Nephew.” Id. The crux of the Complaint is summarized in Zimmer’s allegation that “[p]rior to

and/or since the termination of his relationship with Zimmer, Mire . . . has . . . attempted to

wrongfully convert Zimmer’s confidential information and to divert Zimmer’s customers to

Smith & Nephew.” Id. Based on these allegations, Zimmer asserts a breach of contract claim

against Mire in Count I of its Complaint. Id., p. 6.1

Mire claims it ain’t so. In his motion to dismiss Count I, Mire responds to Zimmer’s

allegations by arguing that no valid non-compete agreement was ever formed. More specifically,

Mire contends that “[s]ince the restrictive covenants at issue here contain [a] geographic

limitation . . . and since no Restricted Geographic Territory was assigned, Count I of the

 Zimmer also asserts claims for “unfair competition and [interference] with prospective 1

business advantage” (Count II) and “breach of fiduciary duty” (Count III). Complaint, pp. 6-7.

Only the breach of contract claim set forth in Count I of the Complaint is at issue here.

2
Complaint should be dismissed.” Defendant’s Memorandum (DE 7), p. 1. Mire elaborates as

follows:

“Restricted Geographic Area” is a defined term in Section 7(a)(4) of the

Noncompetition Agreement and means, specifically, “any geographic territory

assigned to Employee during Employee’s last two years of employment with

[Zimmer].” . . . Zimmer did not assign Mire a geographic territory at any time. . . .

The restrictive covenants that Zimmer alleges that Mire breached have no

applicability unless and until a geographic territory is assigned to Mire. Since no

geographic territory was ever assigned, no binding restrictive covenants exist; and

Mire could not have breached.

Id., p. 3. For this reason, and because “Indiana law disfavors noncompetition agreements[,]” and

also because “[n]oncompetition agreements are strictly construed against the employer[,]” Mire

moves the court to dismiss Count I of Zimmer’s Complaint. Id., pp. 3-4.

The parties do not dispute that the terms of the noncompetition agreement apply to a

limited geographic region, or that Section 7(a)(4) of the agreement contains the definition of 

“Restricted Geographic Area” quoted above. See Agreement (DE 1-1), p. 5. It also cannot be

disputed that the agreement itself makes no reference to a specific “restricted geographic area”

that applied to Mire. Because the agreement is silent on this point, Mire contends, the covenants

contained therein are inapplicable and cannot form the basis for a breach of contract claim.

Zimmer contends that Mire’s “argument misses the mark because, as alleged in the

Complaint, Mire was assigned accounts in the geographic areas of Deridder, Leesville and

Alexandria, Louisiana. . . . Moreover, the Motion’s premise that a geographic territory must be

assigned in the agreement is flawed. Under Indiana law, a geographic territory does not need to

be specifically identified or included in an agreement to be enforceable.” Plaintiff’s Response, p.

2.

3
STANDARD OF REVIEW

Mire brings his motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(6) allows a

defendant to move to dismiss a complaint, or any portion thereof, that fails to “state a claim upon

which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). When deciding a motion to dismiss under

Rule 12(b)(6), the court accepts as true all factual allegations in the complaint and draws all

inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Bielanski v. County of Kane, 550 F.3d 632, 633 (7th Cir.

2008). The complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, the

Supreme Court explained that the complaint must allege facts that are “enough to raise a right to

relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d

929 (2007). Stated differently, the complaint must include “enough facts to state a claim to relief

that is plausible on its face.” Hecker v. Deere & Co., 556 F.3d 575, 580 (7th Cir. 2009) (internal

citation and quotation marks omitted). To be facially plausible, the complaint must allow “the

court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing Twombly,

550 U.S. at 556).

DISCUSSION

The basic principles of Indiana law regarding noncompetition agreements are wellestablished:

Indiana courts have generally recognized and respected the freedom to contract.

Pathfinder Commc’ns Corp. v. Macy, 795 N.E.2d 1103, 1109 (Ind.Ct.App. 2003).

However, covenants to not compete are in restraint of trade and are not favored by

the law. Id. Noncompetition agreements are strictly construed against the

employer and are enforced only if reasonable. Id. Covenants must be reasonable

4
with respect to the legitimate interests of the employer, restrictions on the

employee, and the public interest. Id.

Nightingale Home Healthcare, Inc. v. Helmuth, 15 N.E.3d 1080, 1083 (Ind.Ct.App. 2014). The

court in Nightingale also explained as follows:

A non-compete agreement is a quintessential contract and thus the traditional

rules of contract interpretation apply. As such, a contract is ambiguous only if

reasonable persons would differ as to the meaning of its terms. Beam v. Wausau

Ins. Co., 765 N.E.2d 524, 528 (Ind. 2002). In interpreting an unambiguous

contract, a court gives effect to the parties’ intentions as expressed in the four

corners of the instrument, and clear, plain, and unambiguous terms are conclusive

of that intent. Oxford Fin. Grp., Ltd. v. Evans, 795 N.E.2d 1135, 1142

(Ind.Ct.App.2003). Courts may not construe clear and unambiguous provisions,

nor may it add provisions not agreed upon by the parties. Id.

Id. at 1084. Restrictive covenants are generally enforceable, however, so long as the employer

“‘has asserted a legitimate interest that may be protected by a covenant’ and ‘the scope of the

agreement is reasonable in terms of time, geography, and types of activity prohibited.’”

Plaintiff’s Response, p. 6 (quoting Gleeson v. Preferred Sourcing, LLC, 883 N.E.2d 164, 172

(Ind.Ct.App. 2008)).

As to the present motion to dismiss, the debate is not so much about ambiguity or the

reasonableness of the scope of Zimmer’s noncompetition agreement, but whether all conditions

precedent have been met to effectuate certain terms of the agreement. Mire contends that the

language of the agreement is clear: the restrictive covenants it contains only apply once a

delineated, restrictive geographic area is assigned. Put another way, Mire argues that the

designation of a specific restrictive area is a condition precedent to the applicability of the

restrictive covenants. Zimmer says this argument is misplaced because “there was nothing in the

Agreement that required that the geographic territory be assigned in the Agreement.” Id. Zimmer

5
again points to the fact that its “Complaint alleges that Mire was assigned certain accounts in the

geographic territory of Deridder, Leesville and Alexandria, Louisiana. . . . Mire’s implication that

[he] could be assigned and work on accounts within a geographic area without being ‘assigned’

that geographic area is semantics. The scope of the restriction (i.e. Mire’s assigned accounts

within his geographic territory) is easily understood and plainly expressed.” Id. Zimmer supports

this argument with a discussion of cases that hold that noncompetition agreements are

enforceable even when the required geographic restriction element is not clearly defined. Id., pp.

7-10. This is so because the court is permitted to consider extrinsic evidence to discern the

parties’ intention with regard to the geographic restriction, so it can then consider whether that

restriction is reasonable. Id., p. 7 (citing Field v. Alexander & Alexander of Indiana, Inc., 53

N.E.2d 627 (Ind.Ct.App. 1987); Seach v. Richards, Dieterle & Co., 439 N.E.2d 208 (Ind.Ct.App.

1982)). Zimmer also discusses the case of Zimmer US, Inc. v. Keefer, 2012 WL 5268550

(N.D.Ind. Oct. 23, 2012), in which, according to Zimmer, this court “analyzed the same contract

language as Mire’s Agreement and rejected” an argument concerning the geographic limitation

after determining that the limitation was easily discernable based on extrinsic evidence

(specifically, the known and named customers with whom the defendant former employee had

done business). Zimmer maintains that the same conclusion should apply here. Mire argues that

Keefer is distinguishable since that case was before the court on a preliminary injunction motion

and so Judge DeGuilio applied a preliminary injunction standard of review when concluding that

a known customer list could effectively replace, or substitute for, the restricted geographic area

requirement in Zimmer’s standard noncompetition agreement. Defendant’s Reply, p. 1. Mire

concedes that the Keefer case, as well as Field and Seach, accurately state Indiana law, but says

6
that doesn’t matter in the context of this case. As Mire states it:

Zimmer explains that it is not required to limit its restrictive covenants by

geography if its restrictive covenants contain customer-based restrictions instead.

That is an accurate depiction of Indiana law. . . . In the typical case involving a

noncompetition agreement, the plaintiff company requests a preliminary

injunction, then an evidentiary hearing is conducted, then, among other things, the

court determines whether the restrictive covenants in the noncompetition

agreement are “reasonable in terms of time, geography, and types of activities

prohibited.” . . . In fact, that is precisely what occurred in all the cases relied upon

by Zimmer in its response brief.

Id., p. 2 (italics added) (citations omitted). Since Mire is not challenging the reasonableness of

the restrictive covenants, arguing instead that they never sprang to life in the first place, he claims

that Zimmer’s argument is misplaced and the cases it cites (including Field, Seach, and Keefer)

are inapplicable. In other words, according to Mire, the fact that case law supports Zimmer’s

argument that a customer-based restrictive covenant is as valid as a delineated geographic

restriction is irrelevant to the present case. The point remains, argues Mire, that “Zimmer, as the

drafter of the noncompetition agreement, only constrained Mire from competing or soliciting

‘within the Restricted Geographic Area,’ i.e., within ‘any geographic territory assigned to

[Mire].’” Id., p. 3. Since it is undisputed that the Agreement did not make any such assignment,

the fact that a restricted geographic area can be readily determined using the customers with

whom Mire worked during the relevant time period is not pertinent, or so argues Mire. As he

puts it, “[w]hether or not Indiana law requires a geographic limitation in order to have an

enforceable restrictive covenant in the abstract is irrelevant to Mire’s motion to dismiss–the

express terms of the Zimmer noncompetition agreement require such a limitation.” Id. 

Zimmer argues that the Agreement at issue “clearly manifests Zimmer’s and Mire’s intent

that Mire be prohibited from soliciting his former Zimmer customers on behalf of a competitor

7
for one year. Both the definition of ‘Customer’ and the definition of ‘Restricted Geographic

Area’ restrict Mire only as to the Customers with whom he had involvement during his last two

years with Zimmer.” Id., p. 11. The restrictive covenants are therefore enforceable, argues

Zimmer, since “[e]nforcement of this restrictive covenant based on [Mire’s] assignment of

certain accounts in the geographic territory of Deridder, Leesville and Alexandria, Louisiana[,] is

thus consistent with well settled Indiana law.” Id. (citations omitted). Finally, Zimmer argues

alternatively that this court should enforce the Agreement by employing the “‘blue-pencil’

process” in order to “give[] effect to the parties’ reasonable intentions[.]” Id., p. 12 (citations

omitted). This is really just another way of stating the premise of Zimmer’s opposition to the 2

motion to dismiss–that both the company and Mire intended that the restrictive covenants in the

Agreement would apply to customers in a limited area, and that area is the one in Louisiana

where Mire worked. 

In his reply brief, Mire doubles down on his argument “that Zimmer failed to fulfill a

requirement of its own written agreement and, therefore, cannot enforce Mire’s noncompetition

agreement.” Defendant’s Reply, p. 1. He argues that “[t]he law mandates the strict construction

of any restrictive covenant; Zimmer does not get to argue about how its conduct could fit under

 Zimmer is correct that courts in Indiana may utilize the “blue-pencil” process to give 2

effect to contractual terms intended by the parties. “If practicable, unreasonable restraints are

rendered reasonable by scratching out any offensive clauses to give effect to the parties’

intentions.” Smart Corp. v. Grider, 650 N.E.2d 80, 84 (Ind.Ct.App. 1995) (citing Seach, 439

N.E.2d at 215). But this alternative does not apply here, since the reasonableness of the terms in

the agreement are not being challenged; instead, Mire argues that they are inapplicable from the

get go. It is not possible for the court to employ the “blue-pencil” doctrine in this instance, since

it is the intent of the parties, not the reasonableness of the provisions, that is really at issue.

8
the terms of the restrictive covenant. If Zimmer’s conduct does not fit under the precise language

it chose to use [in the Agreement], then its restrictive covenant is not enforceable.” Id., p. 2. Mire

argues that “Zimmer specifically used the term ‘any geographic territory assigned to Employee’

and since a geographic territory was never ‘assigned’ to Mire, the restrictive covenants fail and

the breach of contract claim should be dismissed.” Id., p. 5 (italics added). 

This brings us to the real crux of the debate, which has more to do with the word

“assigned” than it does with the phrase “restrictive geographic area.” Mire takes issue with the

fact that Zimmer uses the word “assigned” in its brief when referring to the Louisiana territory in

which Mire worked and/or the customers with whom he had contact within the last two years of

his tenure at Zimmer. Defendant’s Reply, p. 4, n. 3. Mire points out that Zimmer states in its

brief (citing its Complaint) that it “‘assigned’ certain accounts in a ‘geographic territory’ to Mire.

Neither of these statements is true. The complaint only alleges that ‘Mire marketed and sold

Zimmer products for certain accounts in Deridder, Leesville and Alexandria, Louisiana.’ This

allegation does not identify the ‘accounts,’ but more importantly it does not use any form of the

word ‘assign,’ which is the requirement found in Section 7(a)(4) of the noncompetition

agreement.” Id. Zimmer does indeed use the word “assigned” in its brief (and not in its

Complaint), but it is clear, as Mire contends, that no formal or official assignment was ever made

(or at least there is no evidence of it in the sparse record before the court). The court presumes

that Zimmer would concede this point (otherwise we wouldn’t be going through the present

exercise) and agree that its use of the term “assigned” is a bit misleading insofar that it implies

that a specific restricted geographic area was officially for formally assigned to Mire. It is likely,

however, that Zimmer was using the word “assigned” in a more generic sense, to support its

9
argument that the restricted geographic area to which the covenants apply was “assigned” by

default, or by the parties’ intent. That is, since the restricted geographic area designated to Mire

consisted of any customers with whom he had contact in the last two years of his employment

with Zimmer in the geographic region in Louisiana in which he worked, it was essentially

“assigned” to him even though this was not done in the agreement itself or apparently by any

supplemental agreement.

So the issue before the court, rephrased slightly, is this: does the fact that the Agreement

is silent on the issue of an assigned restricted geographic area automatically nullify the restrictive

covenants? The answer to that question is no. The court understands Mire’s position that whether

the geographic limitation can be easily determined or not isn’t the point–the point is that no such

limitation was imposed, at least not in the Agreement itself and apparently not in any other

official or formal way. But that does not end the ball game, as Mire claims. Nor does Zimmer’s

argument–that all conditions precedent to forming a binding noncompetition agreement were met

since the geographic limitation can be ascertained–carry the day.

 The reason Mire’s motion is before the court is because the word “assigned,” unlike so

many other words and phrases, is not defined in the noncompetition agreement, and there is

obviously room for debate about that definition, depending on whether one accepts Mire’s

invitation to apply rules of strict contract interpretation and to strictly construe all terms against

Zimmer (the drafter and employer), or Zimmer’s invitation to find that all conditions precedent

were met and Mire’s motion is based on nothing more than a hyper-technicality or semantical

debate. But this is getting ahead of the game altogether. The issue of whether all conditions

precedent to effectuating a binding noncompetition agreement is not one that can be resolved on

10
the present record, nor does it need to be. At the end of the day, the only issue before the court is

whether Zimmer’s Complaint is sufficient to state a cognizable claim for breach of contract

under a Rule 12(b(6) standard of review. The answer to that question is yes. 

Zimmer’s Complaint, as it relates to the Count I breach of contract claim, pleads

sufficient facts to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge. Perhaps it would not survive a motion for

summary judgment, since the record would be more developed and would presumably include

evidence (especially deposition testimony) of the parties’ intentions with regard to the

“assignment” of a “restricted geographic limitation,” but it does survive the motion to dismiss.3

Zimmer’s Complaint includes allegations that Mire, after his separation from Zimmer, solicited

or attempted to solicit business with certain Zimmer customers in the Louisiana area in which he

had served as a Zimmer representative. The facts and allegations contained in the Complaint are

“enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.

Mire is correct that a Rule 12(b)(6) motion can be used “to test the law of the claim, not

the factual support.” Defendant’s Memorandum, p. 2 (citing Moore v. Univ. of Notre Dame, 968

F.Supp. 1330, 1333 (N.D.Ind. 1997)); see also, Waste, Inc. Cost Recovery Grp. v. Allis Chalmers

Corp., 51 F. Supp. 2d 936, 939 (N.D.Ind. 1999) (“A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is properly

utilized to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint or, stated differently, to test the law of the

claim, not the facts that support it.”) (citations omitted). But it is also true that a motion to

dismiss should be denied if the record is not developed enough to permit the court to resolve an

issue presented, i.e., if an issue is premature. See Deschepper v. Midwest Wine and Spirits, Inc.,

 The court is not implying that Mire should revisit this issue in a motion for summary 3

judgment or that his argument would have a greater chance of success at that stage. The point is

that the issue cannot be resolved at this point in the litigation. 

11
84 F.Supp.3d 767, 777 (N.D.Ill. 2015) (“It is premature to decide this issue at the motion to

dismiss stage without the benefit of a fully developed record.”); Life Center, Inc. v. City of Elgin,

Ill., 993 F.Supp.2d 863, 871 (N.D.Ill. 2013) (denying motion to dismiss on basis that “[t]here are

factual issues that are premature to resolve at this juncture without discovery.”); Browning v.

Flexsteel Industries, Inc., 959 F.Supp.2d 1134, 1152-53 (N.D.Ind. 2013) (“premature to decide

[the] issue on the limited record available to the Court on a motion to dismiss under Rule

12(b)(6).”). Also, the court notes that resolution of this issue–whether a specific territory was

“assigned” to Mire, thereby invoking the restrictive covenants–would involve an assessment of

evidence (like deposition testimony) to determine the parties’ intent when they signed the

agreement. This, in turn, might entail credibility determinations, which the court obviously

cannot make now or at the summary judgment stage. Finally, applying the established Rule

12(b)(6) standard of review, the court accepts as true all factual allegations in the complaint and

draws all inferences in favor of Zimmer. Bielanski, 550 F.3d at 633. The court concludes that the

Complaint alleges facts that are “enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. For these reasons, Mire’s motion is denied.

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth above, the Motion to Dismiss Count I of Plaintiff’s Complaint

filed by Defendant Troy Mire (DE 6) is DENIED.

Date: May27, 2016.

 William C. Lee 

William C. Lee, Judge

United States District Court

Northern District of Indiana

12
13