HOME MERIDIAN INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. CABOT LONGNECKER, 1:12-cv-01093

Plaintiff filed suit Aug 17, 2012 to enforce a covenant not to compete in a Sales Representative Agreement.
Agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant was signed Apr 5, 2011; covenant allegedly restricts competing activities.
Defendant allegedly worked for Plaintiff as early as 2010 before signing the Agreement.
Plaintiff alleges Defendant aided Mengnu and Marks & Cohen in upholstered furniture sales and failed to return Plaintiff’s property.
Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendant from soliciting Mengnu, protect confidential information, and delete data from devices.
Court recommends denying Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Likelihood of success on the covenant issue	Covenant valid; Defendant breached by competing.	Covenant validity is disputed; not clearly enforceable.	Plaintiff not shown likelihood of success on merits.
Irreparable harm without injunction	Likely irreparable harm to business if no injunction.	Harm not shown given timing and disputes over covenants.	Irreparable harm not established.
Public interest and balance of equities	Enforcing covenants serves public interest in upholding contract law.	Enforcement would overreach without clear validity.	Not reached; need not balance equities.

Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7 (S. Ct. 2008) (injunctions require likelihood of success and irreparable harm)
Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 575 F.3d 342 (4th Cir. 2009) (clear showing required for likelihood of success and irreparable harm)
The Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 607 F.3d 355 (4th Cir. 2010) (discussion on public interest after Citizens United remand)
Greene v. Kelley, 261 N.C. 166 (1964) (new consideration required for post-employment covenants)
Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (S. Ct. 2010) (context for evaluating post-employment covenants and related restrictions)