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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT