Case Name: INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant, v. Giovanni VISENTIN, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-11-03
Citations: 437 F. App'x 53
Docket Number: No. 11-902-cv
Parties: INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant, v. Giovanni VISENTIN, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee.
Judges: PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE, PIERRE N. LEVAL, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 437
Pages: 53–54

Head Matter:
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant, v. Giovanni VISENTIN, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee.
No. 11-902-cv.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Nov. 3, 2011.
Robert A. Atkins (Martin Flumenbaum, Eric Alan Stone, Jacqueline P. Rubin, on the brief), Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant.
Michael L. Banks (Sarah E. Bouchard, on the brief), Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Philadelphia, PA, and Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP (Ronald E. Richman and Jill Goldberg-Mintzer, on the brief), New York, NY, for Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee.
PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE, PIERRE N. LEVAL, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant International Business Machines Corporation appeals from Chief Judge Preska's denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction to enforce two noncompetition agreements.
After conducting a four-day evidentiary hearing, the district court issued a sixty-two page decision setting forth detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law. International Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Visentin, No. 11 Civ. 399, 2011 WL 672025 (S.D.N.Y. Feb.16, 2011).
This Court reviews the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. Grand River Enter. Six Nations, Ltd. v. Pryor, 481 F.3d 60, 66 (2d Cir.2007). Questions of fact are reviewed for clear error and questions of law are considered de novo. Id.
We conclude, for substantially the reasons set forth in the district court's thoughtful and well-reasoned opinion, that the district court did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.