ABOVE AND BEYOND - BUSINESS TOOLS AND SERVICES FOR ENTREPRENEURS, INC. v. TRUMBO, 3:21-cv-03042

Above and Beyond hired David Trumbo in January 2018; Trumbo signed an employment agreement containing confidentiality and non‑solicitation covenants (1 year for customers, 2 years for employees, 2.5 years for merchants, 3 years for use of confidential information).
Trumbo left Above and Beyond in July 2020 and began working for competitor PayCompass; the complaint alleges he solicited customers, merchants, and employees (including Pretty Nails & Spa) and transferred merchants without authorization.
Above and Beyond served Trumbo April 14, 2021; Trumbo did not respond, the clerk entered default on May 26, 2021, and Above and Beyond moved for partial default judgment seeking a permanent injunction (not yet seeking monetary damages).
The court treated well‑pleaded facts as true for the default‑judgment analysis and evaluated service, personal jurisdiction, sufficiency of the claim, and appropriateness of injunctive relief.
The court found service proper, exercised personal jurisdiction based on Trumbo’s forum‑selection clause in the employment agreement, concluded the complaint stated a legitimate cause of action, and weighed the factors supporting default judgment.
The court denied injunctions as to customer, employee, and merchant solicitation (customers covenant expired; monetary damages deemed adequate for employees/merchants) but granted a three‑year injunction (through July 2023) barring Trumbo from using Above and Beyond’s defined Confidential Information.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was service proper such that default judgment may be entered?	Service was effected by hand delivery; affidavit of service proves personal delivery.	No response / no challenge.	Service was proper.
May the court exercise personal jurisdiction?	Trumbo consented to New Jersey jurisdiction via employment agreement forum‑selection clause.	No response / no challenge.	Court has personal jurisdiction; forum clause is valid and enforceable.
Do the complaint’s allegations establish a legitimate cause of action (breach and misuse of confidential information)?	Complaint pleads access to confidential information and specific solicitation/poaching (e.g., Pretty Nails & Spa).	No response / no defense asserted.	Complaint states a legitimate cause of action; allegations accepted on default.
Is a permanent injunction appropriate and what scope/timing is proper?	Seeks injunctive enforcement of all covenants (1 yr customers, 2 yrs employees, 2.5 yrs merchants, 3 yrs confidential info).	No response; employment agreement included a stipulation about inadequacy of damages (not credited).	Denied injunctive relief as to customer (expired), employee and merchant solicitation (monetary damages adequate; plaintiff may seek damages). Granted a narrowly tailored 3‑year injunction against using Confidential Information (through July 2023).

Hritz v. Woma Corp., 732 F.2d 1178 (3d Cir. 1984) (default‑judgment entry is discretionary).
Anchorage Assoc. v. Virgin Islands Bd. of Tax Rev., 922 F.2d 168 (3d Cir. 1990) (procedural standards for default judgments).
La. Counseling & Family Servs., Inc. v. Makrygialos, LLC, 543 F. Supp. 2d 359 (D.N.J. 2008) (default judgment requirements and service).
Comdyne I, Inc. v. Corbin, 908 F.2d 1142 (3d Cir. 1990) (treatment of allegations on default).
DIRECTV, Inc. v. Pepe, 431 F.3d 162 (3d Cir. 2005) (accept well‑pleaded facts as true for default proceedings, except damages).
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (forum‑selection clauses and due process).
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006) (four‑factor test for permanent injunctions).
Frank's GMC Truck Ctr., Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 847 F.2d 100 (3d Cir. 1988) (availability of monetary damages undermines claim of irreparable harm).