Court Opinion

ID: 9884518
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 03:00:19.104443+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:39.222704
License: Public Domain

POPOVICH, Chief Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent for the following reasons:
1. The trial court erred in failing to grant partial summary judgment in favor of Satellite Industries on the issue of enforceability. The court denied full enforcement because it found the consideration provided Keeling was not fully sufficient. *642Consideration regarding a restrictive covenant is sufficient or it is not. See Pine River State Bank v. Mettille, 333 N.W.2d 622, 629 (Minn.1983). Because the trial court found minimum sufficiency of consideration, the entire covenant should be enforced.
2.The trial court properly issued a permanent injunction to restrain Keeling from using confidential business information or trade secrets obtained at Satellite Industries for producing income at Synergy III. Permanent equitable relief may be issued in the trial court’s discretion. See Cherne Industrial, Inc. v. Grounds & Associates, Inc., 278 N.W.2d 81, 91 (Minn.1979). The trial court did not abuse its discretion because Satellite Industries’ trade secrets and confidential information are clearly protect-able here and an additional hearing would not serve to alter that holding.