Clark's Sales & Services, Inc. v. John D. Smith and Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. - 1/22/14

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Wednesday  January 22, 2014 
11:00 AM  EST

10:30 a.m. 49A02-1306-PL-552. Clark’s Sales & Service, Inc. (“Clark’s”) appeals the trial court’s order denying its motion for preliminary injunction as to a restrictive covenant it sought to enforce against former Clark’s employee, John D. Smith, and his new employer, Ferguson Enterprises Inc.  Smith worked for Clark’s for approximately fourteen years before leaving to work for Ferguson.  During his employment with Clark’s, Smith signed an employment agreement which included a noncompetition provision.  The trial court concluded that the noncompetition provision that Clark’s drafted is overly broad and unenforceable. Clark’s maintains that the noncompetition provision is reasonable and enforceable as written but, in the event we determine that it is not, Clark’s requests this Court to apply the blue pencil doctrine to make the provision reasonable and enforceable. If it is determined that the noncompetition provision in the employment agreement is (or can be made) reasonable and enforceable, Smith and Ferguson assert that Clark’s request for an injunction must still fail because Clark’s previously committed a material breach of the employment contract it now seeks to enforce.  Clark’s responds that a “survival of obligations” provision in the contract precludes Smith from raising the material breach defense.

Back to Events
Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT