A court action has been filed by a one-time Guardian Auto Glass worker who confirmed a non-competition agreement with the company before accepting employment with Glass America. Robert Staples signed an "Invention, Discovery, 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 immoral and doubtless unlawful."
Staples later accepted work at a Glass America location in Fairfax, Va, which is within one hundred mile radius of the Guardian location where he was employed. Staples and Glass America received a communication from Guardian's attorney requesting "enforcement of the provisions of the non-competition agreement" and alert of approaching legal action in Michigan.
"The cease and refrain 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 details of the non-competition agreement and can't afford to litigate this case in the courts of the state of Michigan, approximately 400 miles away," reads Staples petition.
Staples says the agreement forbidden him from work in any capacity with a rival, even in a position like a cleaner or janitor. He claims that there is no effort to ascertain whether the forbidden activity is the same sort of work as that done for the previous employer.
Glass America also filed an identical petition backing Staples' claims.
Guardian answered with a motion to dismiss the complaint saying that, "the court should, in the interest of justice, enter an order staying plaintiff's complaint for declaratory relief outstanding the resolution in the parallel legal proceedings before the Michigan federal district court of Mr. Staples' outstanding motion for a section 1404 ( a ) optional transfer."
Guardian's motion states that Staples filed a court action on the same afternoon as Guardian's suit was filed.
"One such equitable factor that strongly lessens in favor 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 initial action that's now before this court in Virginia Circuit Court on April 4, 2012 in an effort to avoid the application of Michigan law, to which he contractually concluded in Nov 2010, after receiving notice that he was about to be sued in Michigan thru Guardian's April 2, 2012 desist letter," reads Guardian's motion.
The Michigan court issued a "show cause order" that ordered Staples to show cause before the court 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 prerequisites listed in the non-competitive agreement, which includes returning all documents and private information to Guardian Auto Glass.
Guardian is demanding that the Virginia court dismiss Staples' complaint because the Michigan court already has jurisdiction over the issue. Tags: Guardian Glass, Glass America
|
|
|
|
|