Robert Kuntz, et al. v. EVI LLC - 10/22/13

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Tuesday  October 22, 2013 
1:00 PM  EST

1 p.m. 02A03-1301-PL-14. Purdue University. Robert Kuntz owns Kunodu, Inc., which was in the business of selling, repairing, rebuilding, and/or refurbishing electric automobile motors on real property also owned by Kuntz through B-K Interests, LLC.  In 2006, Kuntz sold Kunodu’s assets to another business and both Kuntz and Kunodu entered into a covenant not to compete as part of the sale.  B-K Interests also entered into a lease agreement with the company for use of the real property.  In 2011, the original buyer sold the business assets to EVI, LLC, and also assigned the covenant not to compete and lease.  After negotiations to extend the lease of the property failed, EVI moved to a new location and continued its business.  In 2012, EVI filed a motion for preliminary injunction alleging Kuntz had been engaging in activities that are substantially similar to the activities engaged in by EVI, both personally and by allowing a similar business on the property.  After a hearing, the trial court entered an order enjoining Kuntz, Kunodu, and B-K Interests from any further violations of the covenant not to compete, extending the term of the covenant not to compete, and ordering them to pay EVI’s attorney fees.  Kuntz, Kunodu, and B-K Interests now appeal, arguing the trial court erred in granting the preliminary injunction because EVI has not shown a likelihood of success at trial, and further arguing the trial court erred in modifying the terms of the covenant not to compete and entering a judgment for attorney fees.

Back to Events
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. For many years this young man was "family" being my cousin's son. Then he decided to ignore my existence and that of my daughter who was very hurt by his actions after growing up admiring, Jason. Glad he is doing well, as for his opinion, if you care so much you wouldn't ignore the feelings of those who cared so much about you for years, Jason.

  2. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  3. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  4. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  5. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

ADVERTISEMENT