A lawsuit has been filed by a one-time Guardian Auto Glass employee who confirmed a non-competition agreement with the company before accepting work with Glass America. Robert Staples signed an "Invention, Disclosure, Confidentiality and Non-Competition Agreement" with Guardian Auto Glass in Nov of 2010.
According to Staples' petition for declaratory judgment, he "left Guardian Glass as he became more uncomfortable with certain practices of the respondent which he claimed to be dishonest and probably unlawful."
Staples later accepted employment at a Glass America location in Fairfax, Va, which is within a 100 mile radius of the Guardian location where he was employed. Staples and Glass America received a letter from Guardian's solicitor requesting "enforcement of the provisions of the non-competition agreement" and alert of approaching action in the courts in Michigan.
"The cease and desist letter has had an intended chilling effect on the petitioner in that the petitioner does not want to risk a massive damage award for violating the terms of the non-competition agreement and can't afford to litigate this case in the courts of the state of Michigan, roughly 400 miles away," reads Staples petition.
Staples says that the agreement restricted him from employment in any capacity with a rival, even in a position like a cleaner or janitor. He claims that there's no effort to figure out whether the proscribed activity is the same kind of work as that done for the former employer.
Glass America also filed an identical petition backing Staples' claims.
Guardian responded with a motion to dismiss the complaint stating that, "the court should, in the interests of justice, enter an order staying plaintiff's complaint for declaratory relief pending the resolution in the parallel legal proceedings before the Michigan Fed district court of Mr. Staples' outstanding motion for a section 1404 ( a ) optional transfer."
Guardian's motion states that Staples filed a legal action on the same afternoon as Guardian's suit was filed.
"One such equitable factor that strongly mitigates in favour of dismissal of a declaratory action is, where, as here, a petitioner preemptively files for declaratory relief responding to a particular threat of a later-filed state-court action on the merits. Mr. Staples obviously filed the opening action that's now before this court in Virginia Circuit Court on April 4, 2012 in an attempt to avoid the appliance of Michigan law, to which he contractually concluded in Nov 2010, after receiving notice that he was going to be sued in Michigan through Guardian's April two, 2012 cease and desist letter," reads Guardian's motion.
The Michigan court issued a "show cause order" that ordered Staples to show cause before the court as to why an initial injunction shouldn't be issued against him. Guardian claims that Staples didn't show up for that hearing and the court thus entered an injunctive decree against Staples. This decree demands that Staples complies with the requirements listed in the non-competitive agreement, which includes returning all documents and secret information to Guardian Auto Glass.
Guardian is requesting that the Virginia court dismiss Staples' complaint because the Michigan court already has jurisdiction over the issue. Tags: Guardian Glass, Glass America
|
|
|
|
|