Phoenix Communications v. Marquardt

Plaintiff's Memo in Support of a Temporary Injunction (Noncompete Agreement)


The Defendant in this case had an employment contract containing a noncompetite clause with a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Plaintiff. The subsidiary assigned the Defendant's contract to the Plaintiff. The Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff lacked standing to enforce the agreement between the Defendant and the subsidiary. The Plaintiff argued that the Defendant who is party to a noncompete agreement has no interest in the form of business that the Plaintiff operates, and that the subsidiary and the parent company had an identity of interest such that enforcing the agreement was proper. The memorandum also addresses the proper standard for the enforceability of a covenant not to compete in the State of Tennessee.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Reference Info:State, 6th Circuit, Tennessee | United States

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Timothy Perkins, AutoZone, Inc. | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


AutoZone, Inc. on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.