Source: https://masslawblog.com/noncompete-agreements/cases-cited-in-my-mcle-noncompete-chapter-update-2011/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 00:01:07+00:00

Document:
Inner-Tite Corp. v. Brozowski, No. 2010-0156 (Worcester Super. Ct. 2010). This lenghy decision was written by Judge Janet Kenton-Walker, sitting in Worcester County, following a bench trial. The judge enforced a one year convenant not to compete against an employee who had worked for Inner-Tite in Georgia. Given Brozowski’s relatively low salary, and the fact that he was asked to sign the non-compete after beginning work for Inner-Tite, this contract would not have been enforceable under the various proposed Massachusetts non-compete statutes. Either ground would have invalidated the agreement. This was a tough outcome for the former employee, and one which might have had a different outcome in Suffolk, Middlesex or Norfolk counties, which tend to have more liberal leanings in these cases.
Marino Company, Inc. v. Anderson, 2010 Mass. App. Unpub. LEXIS 448 (2010). This case was moot on appeal where the employer sought specific performance of a three year non-compete agreement, but by the time of trial more than three years had already passed. See EMC v. Arturi, below.
Palladium Group, Inc. v. MacGillivray, 2010-2246 (Middlesex Sup. Ct. 2010). The court construed the non-compete agreement to provide only for forfeiture of benefits, and therefore injunctive relief against the former employee was not available to the former employer.
Me. Pointe, LLC v. Starr, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10442 (D. Mass. Feb. 3, 2011). Judge O’Toole found that where a sales representative signed an independent contractor agreement on behalf of his company the agreement committed the company, but not the individual in his personal capacity.
People’s Choice Mortgage, Inc. v. Premium Capital Funding, LLC, 26 Mass. L. Rptr. 582 (Super. Ct. 2010). This opinion, written by Judge Stephen E. Neel sitting in Suffolk County, is notable because the new employer was found liable for tortious interference and violation of M.G.L. c. 93A.
Ansys, Inc. v. Computational Dynamics North America, Ltd., 595 F.3d 75 (1st Cir. 2010). The First Circuit, applying an “abuse of discretion” standard to denial of a preliminary injunction by the New Hampshire District Court, affirmed the lower court. This case applied New Hampshire non-compete law.
Parexel International Corp. v. Nanavati, 26 Mass. L. Rptr. 426 (Super. Ct. 2011). In an odd twist (one which I can’t recall having seen before), Judge Thayer Fremont-Smith, sitting in Middlesex County, found that the fact that the new employer had agreed to pay the employee during the non-compete period, even if the employee was enjoined from working, was a factor that actually favored entry of the injunction, since the employee would not be injured by the injunction.
OfficeMax v. Levesque (1st Cir.). In this case the non-compete agreements were found to be unenforceable because they were not assignable to OfficeMax as part of a corporate acquisition. This probably came as a surprise to OfficeMax, and shows why “due diligence” is an important part of the corporate acquisition process. (Applying Maine law).
Empirix v. Ivanov (Middlesex Sup. Ct., May 17, 2011). Superior Court Judge Frances A. McIntyre, sitting in Suffolk County, issued an injunction enforcing a one year non-compete.
EMC v. Arturi (1st Cir., Aug. 26, 2011) (Souter, J). In this decision, written by former Associate Supreme Court Justice Souter, the First Circuit upheld the denial of a preliminary injunction where the one-year non-compete period had expired. “Like any contracting party, EMC makes its agreements subject to the rules of equity governing specific enforcement; rules, moreover, that were clearly in place in the governing federal and state cases well before the company required [the employee] to sign. Being forewarned, EMC could have contracted . . . for tolling the term of the restriction during litigation, or for a period of restriction to commence upon preliminary finding of breach. But it did not.” I would venture to say that this decision puts to rest, once and for all, the argument that a noncompete provision can be enforced beyond its term in the absence of a tolling agreement.
Previous post: Jury Consultants post – Rajaratnam: Are They Worth It?

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.