Craig Vickery v. Ardagh Glass, Inc.
85 N.E.3d 852
Ind. Ct. App. Recl.2017Background
- Vickery signed a Noncompete Employee Agreement in September 2004 while becoming a full‑time mould engineer; it barred competitive work for one year after employment and required protection of trade secrets.
- Vickery worked as a senior mould engineer (designing moulds, providing vendor drawings, troubleshooting, implementing engineering standards) until he resigned in June 2016 to accept a substantially similar position with Owens‑Illinois, a direct competitor.
- Ardagh (which acquired SGCI by stock purchase and merged to become Ardagh Glass, Inc.) learned of Vickery’s new employment, threatened suit, and filed for a TRO and injunction on June 30, 2016; the court issued an ex parte TRO and later held extensive hearings.
- Vickery’s counsel later agreed to extend the TRO and combine TRO and preliminary‑injunction hearings, then moved to vacate the TRO during the hearing; Ardagh obtained a preliminary injunction enjoining Vickery from working on mould engineering or using trade secrets for Owens‑Illinois.
- On appeal Vickery argued (1) insufficient notice for the TRO and due‑process violation, and (2) that Ardagh could not enforce the Noncompete and lacked trade‑secrets claims; the court affirmed the preliminary injunction but found the TRO notice was legally insufficient though waived by Vickery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ardagh) | Defendant's Argument (Vickery) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the ex parte TRO issued with sufficient notice under T.R. 65(B) and due process? | Notice was adequate because counsel emailed intent to file and attached pleadings; immediate relief was necessary. | Email notice of intent to file and attachments lacked a hearing date/location; T.R. 65(B) requirements were not met. | TRO did not meet T.R. 65(B) notice requirements, but Vickery waived the objection by agreeing to extend the TRO and combine hearings. |
| May Ardagh enforce the 2004 Noncompete after acquiring SGCI by stock purchase? | Stock purchase/merger left corporate identity intact; Ardagh succeeded to SGCI’s contractual rights and may enforce the Noncompete. | Noncompete is nonassignable, so Ardagh (not the original signatory) cannot enforce it. | Under Delaware and Pennsylvania principles, the stock acquisition/merger preserved the employer’s identity; Ardagh may enforce the Noncompete. |
| Is the Noncompete reasonable and enforceable (consideration, protectable interests, geographic scope)? | The agreement had consideration (employment), protected legitimate trade‑secret and confidential business interests, and is reasonably limited to North America/nationwide given Ardagh’s business. | Agreement lacked new consideration, overbroad (no geographic limitation), and does not protect legitimate interests. | Trial court’s findings — employment as consideration, identifiable protectable interests (trade secrets, confidential processes), and geographic scope (North America/nationwide) — are supported; plaintiff likely to succeed on merits. |
| Has Ardagh shown likelihood of success on trade‑secrets claim and entitlement to injunctive relief (irreparable harm, balance of harms, public interest)? | Ardagh identified categories of trade‑secret information, reasonable secrecy measures, and a risk of misappropriation if Vickery worked for Owens; damages would be inadequate or uncollectible. | Vickery conceded he may not reveal trade secrets but argued Ardagh failed to identify specific secrets and that monetary damages would suffice. | Court found sufficient showing of trade secrets and threatened misappropriation; breach of noncompete and trade‑secret claims justify irreparable harm and injunction; public interest favors enforcement of contracts and trade‑secret protection. |
Key Cases Cited
- Witt v. Jay Petroleum, Inc., 964 N.E.2d 198 (Ind. 2012) (TROs are not appealable as of right and appellate review limited).
- In re Anonymous, 43 N.E.3d 568 (Ind. 2015) (Trial Rule 65(B) safeguards are essential to due process).
- Hess v. Gebhard & Co., 808 A.2d 912 (Pa. 2002) (restrictive covenants without assignability provisions are generally not assignable).
- Missett v. Hub Int’l Pa., LLC, 6 A.3d 530 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010) (stock purchase does not change the corporate identity holding restrictive covenants).
- Pulse Techs., Inc. v. Notaro, 67 A.3d 778 (Pa. 2013) (elements for enforceability of restrictive covenants under Pennsylvania law).
- Central Ind. Podiatry, P.C. v. Krueger, 882 N.E.2d 723 (Ind. 2008) (breach of noncompete establishes prima facie irreparable harm warranting injunctive relief).