SMITH, BUCKLIN & ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED, APPELLANT v. WILLIAM SONNTAG AND VICTORIA SHAW, APPELLEES, 83 F.3d 476

Summary

The former employer claimed that the district court erred in concluding that it had not met the first prerequisite for obtaining a preliminary injunction. The former employees disagreed, contending that the district court's interpretation of the contract was correct especially in light of the court's limited scope of review of the district court's determination. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction. The court found that the former employees' interpretation of the covenant as barring employees from performing the same service for a competitor only if that service is part of a broader package offered by the competitor was unreasonable. The court also determined that the district court misapplied the contract of adhesion doctrine. While the court was inclined to disagree with the district court's conclusion that the contract clause did not cover the former employees' activities, it held that the judgment was correct because the former employer had ...