LasikPlus of Texas, P.C and LCA-Vision, Inc. v. Federico Mattioli, MD
418 S.W.3d 210
Tex. App.2013Background
- Appellants Lasik Plus of Texas, P.C. and LCA-Vision, Inc. sued Dr. Mattioli for breach of a covenant not to compete and a notice of termination clause in an Employment Agreement.
- The Employment Agreement (2003) ties Lasik Plus and LCA-Vision to a noncompete with a 20-mile radius restriction and patient solicitation ban; the agreement has remedies and enforcement provisions.
- Dr. Mattioli notified his departure in Oct 2012 and planned a new clinic within 2 miles of Lasik Plus, prompting the suit.
- The trial court granted an ex parte TRO; after a hearing, it denied a temporary injunction. Appellants appealed.
- Texas Covenants Not to Compete Act §15.50 governs physician covenants; the trial court considered §15.50 in evaluating likelihood of success and potential reformation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §15.50 governs the temporary injunction analysis for physician covenants. | Lasik Plus argues §15.50 can inform likelihood of success. | Mattioli argues §15.50 governs final remedies, not interlocutory relief. | Yes, §15.50 may inform likelihood of success on merits in temporary injunction context. |
| Whether the contract could be reformed to add a buy-out under §15.50(b)(2). | Appellants seek reformation via 8.4 or statutory history to include buy-out. | Mattioli argues §15.50(b) does not authorize reformation to add a buy-out. | Reformation not warranted; statutory text does not authorize adding buy-out; 8.4 does not apply here. |
| Whether notice provision §4.3 (120 days’ notice) can support a temporary injunction as an alternative basis. | Alleges Mattioli breached notice provision; seeks injunction on that basis. | Appellants did not request injunction on §4.3; breach of notice alone does not justify a TRO. | No, §4.3 breach did not support a temporary injunction; insufficent basis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. 2002) (standard for temporary injunction, likelihood of success and irreparable injury)
- EMS USA, Inc. v. Shary, 309 S.W.3d 653 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) (review of temporary injunction without merits on record; proper scope of review)
- EMSL Analytical, Inc. v. Younker, 154 S.W.3d 693 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004) (evidence viewed favorably to trial court in injunction context)
- Cardinal Health Staffing Network, Inc. v. Bowen, 106 S.W.3d 230 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003) (section 15.50 interplay with temporary injunctions)
- Tom James of Dallas, Inc. v. Cobb, 109 S.W.3d 877 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003) (consideration of 15.50 enforceability in injunction context)
- Comiskey v. FH Partners, LLC, 373 S.W.3d 620 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012) (mutual mistake and reformation doctrine limits in injunction context)
- Williams v. Glash, 789 S.W.2d 261 (Tex. 1990) (mutual mistake doctrine limits; caution against avoiding bargain)