For the reasons herein set forth, Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief must be denied . Oral argument on the motion was held a month later, July 12, 2000. From the departure of Demos from Plaintiff's employ to the time of oral argument, more than three months later, Plaintiff was unable to identify a single order or customer that it lost to Demos or International Spice. Plaintiff was not able to suggest or identify any formula or blend which it claimed to be unique and proprietary was being produced or marketed by International Spice. Certainly, competition with regard to bulk spices, in and of itself, cannot be seriously suggested as a basis for irreparable harm.
Competition is clearly keen.
Plaintiff has been unable to show that any business was lost due to Demos' employment with International Spice or that, if business were lost, Plaintiff could not be adequately compensated by a money judgment. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden of proof with regard to this necessary element in establishing the right to a preliminary injunction. Likelihood of Success on the Merits Plaintiff vehemently claims that Demos did, in fact, execute the non-competition agreement in the form submitted with its moving papers. Notwithstanding Demos' denial of that claim and assuming that Plaintiff is correct in its assertion of the existence of a binding non-competition agreement, Plaintiff cannot prevail as a matter of law. In order for a restrictive covenant in a employment agreement to be enforceable, it must be reasonably limited temporally and geographically.