216 A.3d 1129
Pa. Super. Ct.2019Background
- Lico, Inc. (Appellant) employed Adam Douga (Appellee) as a salesman from 2006 to July 3, 2017.
- In 2011, after learning Douga worked for a competitor, Lico had Douga sign a non‑compete: two‑year duration post‑employment, 100‑mile radius from McKeesport.
- Douga resigned in July 2017 and then began servicing Lico’s customers through a new company.
- Lico sued for tortious interference and unfair competition and moved for a preliminary injunction in Feb. 2018 to enforce the non‑compete.
- The trial court denied injunctive relief after hearings (April and Aug. 2018). Lico appealed from that denial.
- By its terms the non‑compete expired July 3, 2019; the Superior Court dismissed the appeal as moot because any relief would lack legal effect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2011 compensation increase provided valid consideration for the non‑compete | Lico: 2011 pay/commission change constituted valid consideration and remained effective | Douga: later changes to compensation (to straight commission, loss of health benefits) materially altered terms and voided consideration | Moot — court did not reach the merits because the non‑compete expired; appeal dismissed |
| Whether subsequent changes to employment terms (commission/benefits) voided the non‑compete | Lico: changes did not destroy the original consideration supporting the non‑compete | Douga: changes were material and therefore voided the covenant | Moot — same disposition; court found no justiciable relief remained |
Key Cases Cited
- Gordon v. Phil. County Dem. Exec. Comm., 80 A.3d 464 (Pa. Super. 2013) (mootness where subsequent events render relief ineffective)
- In re R.D., 44 A.3d 657 (Pa. Super. 2012) (mootness doctrine and exceptions analysis)
- Scranton School Dist. v. Scranton Fed'n of Teachers, 282 A.2d 235 (Pa. 1971) (appeal from injunction may become moot after parties resolve dispute)
- In re Estate of Border, 68 A.3d 946 (Pa. Super. 2013) (recognizing public‑importance exception to mootness)
- Rivera v. Pa. Dept. of Corr., 837 A.2d 525 (Pa. Super. 2003) (definition of moot issue where court cannot grant effective relief)
- Commonwealth v. Buehl, 462 A.2d 1316 (Pa. Super. 1983) (test for "capable of repetition, yet evading review")