Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Insight Direct USA, Inc. v. Kelleher

United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Austin Division

April 5, 2017

INSIGHT DIRECT USA, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
CHRISTOPHER KELLEHER, Defendant.

          ORDER

          ROBERT PITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court is Plaintiff Insight Direct USA, Inc.'s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. (Dkt. 3). After considering the parties' arguments and the relevant law, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Motion should be GRANTED.

         I. Overview

         This suit involves an alleged breach of a non-compete covenant. Defendant Christopher Kelleher (“Defendant”) accepted an offer of employment with Plaintiff in February 2014. (Compl. ¶ 18). At that time, he entered into a Confidentiality, Intellectual Property, Non-Solicitation, and Non-Competition Agreement (“Non-Compete Agreement”) with Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 24). That agreement prohibits Defendant, who was employed by Plaintiff as a director, from engaging in “competing business” in the “restricted territory” for a period of nine months. (Non-Compete Agreement, Dkt. 1-3, at 6).[1] Defendant also twice entered into a Restricted Stock Unit Agreement (“RSU Agreement”) with Plaintiff, which contained a similar non-compete covenant. (Id. ¶ 26).

         While employed by Plaintiff, Defendant oversaw Plaintiff's channel-partner sales relationship with Dell, EMC Corporation, and VMware. (Id. ¶¶ 34-35). Defendant notified Plaintiff that he was leaving to join VMWare on February 28, 2017; his last day with Plaintiff was March 7, 2017. (Id. ¶¶ 52-53). At VMware, Defendant is responsible for “building, coaching, and developing VMWare's inside sales teams in the Americas.” (Resp., Dkt. 12, at 2).

         Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order enjoining Defendant “and all other persons or entities in active concert or participation with [Defendant] who receive notice of the Temporary Restraining Order by personal service or otherwise” from:

a) Rendering services for any person or organization, or engaging directly or indirectly in any business, that is competitive with Plaintiff;
b) Disclosing to anyone outside Plaintiff or using, without prior written authorization from Plaintiff, any trade secrets or other confidential or proprietary information acquired by Defendant during his employment with Plaintiff;
c) Soliciting, interfering, inducing, or attempting to cause any employee of Plaintiff to leave his or her employment;[2] and
d) Soliciting, interfering, inducing, or attempting to cause any client of Plaintiff to terminate or reduce its business relationship with Plaintiff.[3]

(App. TRO, Dkt. 3, at 11).

         The Court held a hearing on Plaintiff's Application for a Temporary Restraining Order on March 31, 2017. (See Dkt. 16).

         II. Legal Standards

         A. Temporary ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.