IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

MAINLINE INFORMATION SYSTEMS,

INC.,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 4:11cv137/RS-WCS

JIMMY D. FORDHAM,

Defendant.

__________________________________

ORDER

Before me are Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 5) and 

Defendant’s Motion to Abate and Initial Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary 

Injunction (Doc. 21). An evidentiary hearing was held on July 20, 2011. The Motion is 

DENIED. 

A party seeking a preliminary injunction bears the burden of establishing its 

entitlement to relief. Scott v. Roberts, 612 F.3d 1279, 1290 (11th Cir. 2010). In 

considering the propriety of preliminary relief, four factors are relevant: (1) whether there 

is a substantial likelihood that the party applying for preliminary relief will succeed later 

on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will suffer an irreparable injury absent 

preliminary relief; (3) whether the harm that the applicant will likely suffer outweighs 

any harm that its opponent will suffer as a result of an injunction; and (4) whether 

preliminary relief would disserve the public interest. Id. 

Case 4:11-cv-00137-RS-WCS Document 54 Filed 07/21/11 Page 1 of 3
Here, Plaintiff’s Motion seeks the entry of a preliminary injunction prohibiting the 

Defendant from continuing to contact Plaintiff’s employees for the purpose of soliciting 

them to leave Plaintiff and for disclosing or utilizing trade secrets obtained while 

employed by Plaintiff. (Doc. 5, p. 10). Thus, to be successful on the Motion, Plaintiff has 

to demonstrate that there is a substantial likelihood that it will succeed on the merits of its 

tortious interference with business relationship claim and/or its misappropriation of trade 

secrets claim. (See Doc. 1, p. 4-5). 

At hearing, Plaintiff presented no witnesses and only submitted two affidavits. 

The first affidavit is a threadbare declaration by Richard S. Kearney, Plaintiff’s CEO, that 

the allegations of the complaint are true and correct. (Doc. 1, p. 6). The second is the 

declaration of William Nemesi, a senior vice president for Plaintiff. (See Doc. 29, 

Attach. 1). Mr. Nemesi alleged that Defendant contacted twenty-two of Plaintiff’s 

employees for the purpose of soliciting their employment. He also alleges that an

additional fourteen of Plaintiff’s employees were contacted by Sirius personnel under the 

direction of Defendant. Mr. Nemesi’s allegations are the foundation for Plaintiff’s 

Motion. However, testimony presented at the hearing directly contradicts Mr. Nemesi’s 

declaration. Defendant testified that he had not been in contact with a majority of those 

listed in the declaration. In addition, Mr. Applelby, Mr. Besley, Mr. Robbins, and Mr. 

Bench supported Defendant’s testimony and stated that Defendant had never solicited 

them to be employed by Sirius. The evidence presented at the hearing calls into question 

the accuracy of Mr. Nemesi’s statement, and it does not indicate a systematic attempt to 

pirate Plaintiff’s key personnel. 

Case 4:11-cv-00137-RS-WCS Document 54 Filed 07/21/11 Page 2 of 3
For these reasons, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the 

merits of its claims. Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood that Defendant’s interference 

“with an at-will employment contract [was] . . . purely malicious and not coupled with 

any legitimate competitive economic interest." Hodge v. Orlando Utils. Comm'n, 2009 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77094 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 28, 2009) (citing Heavener, Ogier Servs., Inc. 

v. R. W. Fla. Region, Inc., 418 So. 2d 1074, 1076-77 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Likewise, 

Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of success on the trade secrets count because it did 

not present any testimony regarding Defendant use of trade secrets. 

ORDERED on July 21, 2011.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:11-cv-00137-RS-WCS Document 54 Filed 07/21/11 Page 3 of 3