Opinion ID: 1175722
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: genuine issue as to a material fact

Text: Appellant's contention that summary judgment is rarely a proper procedure in a complex restraint of trade case is inapplicable here. While such a rule is appropriate to ... complex antitrust litigation, where motive and intent play leading roles ..., Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 368 U.S. 464, 473, 82 S.Ct. 486, 491, 7 L.Ed.2d 458 (1962), motive and intent are not in issue in this case. Appellant also argues that factual questions were presented to the trial court which precluded disposition by summary judgment. Specifically, appellant insists that there were questions of fact as to: the reasonableness of the covenant, the undue hardship imposed upon appellant, the justification for imposing the covenant by appellee, the existence of consideration for the contract and the justification for terminating appellant's employment. We are of the opinion the first three questions listed involve legal determinations, that are to be made by the court, when it makes its reasonableness analysis, and not by a trier of fact. This is further amplified in the second (II) portion of our opinion. As to the remaining two questions, we conclude that they do not relate to any material fact as far as Counts I, II and IV are concerned. The lack of consideration contention, for example, is not only without evidentiary basis but is also contradictory to appellant's position on Count III. Appellant had received a substantial salary increase when he was promoted to the general manager's position and continued receiving a substantial salary until his employment terminated. In a similar postemployment-restriction case, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee held as a matter of law that employment in itself is sufficient consideration to support such a contract. Ramsey v. Mutual Supply Co., 58 Tenn. App. 164, 427 S.W.2d 849 (1968). In the case at hand, appellant was not only employed but was also paid a salary substantially above what his other employers were willing to pay him for filling similar positions but without such a postemployment restriction. We conclude that there was no question of lack of consideration. As to the justification for termination question, we fail to see how it relates to any count save Count III, which is not in issue on this appeal. Finally, appellant argues that [a]ppellee's continued obstruction and refusal to conduct discovery in this case clearly indicates that there are disputed issues of material fact. No authority was cited by appellant on this speculative argument. Furthermore, appellant did not raise this matter before the trial court and we see no valid reason to consider it on this appeal. In any event, we do not see anything in the record to indicate that appellee's behavior was improper. Moreover, how a party's failure to conduct discovery has any relevance to whether or not there are disputed issues of material fact escapes us. We, therefore, conclude that there was no genuine issue as to a material fact.