1:25-cv-06208
S.D.N.Y.Sep 18, 2025Background
- Marsh USA sued four former employees (Parrish, Lugones, Lynn, Layton) seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to enforce restrictive covenants in their employment agreements.
- Employment agreements included one-year non-solicitation covenants (employees and clients) and confidentiality obligations covering client and personnel information.
- Defendants resigned or gave notice to join Howden US Services, a direct competitor; Layton already commenced employment at Howden while others had notice periods and planned start dates.
- Marsh presented evidence of coordinated solicitation: outreach to Marsh employees promoting Howden offers, creation/transfers of SharePoint files, and client transitions; over 90 employees and at least 17 clients moved to Howden (many tied to defendants).
- Marsh argued defendants accessed and misused confidential pricing models, renewal timelines, compensation data and client lists to solicit employees and clients. Defendants denied enforceability and argued damages suffice and public interest favors competition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforcement of non-solicitation of Marsh employees | Defendants solicited Marsh employees in violation of one-year covenant; Marsh showed direct and circumstantial evidence of coordinated solicitation | Agreements are unenforceable or damages adequate; solicitation already completed | Court likely to find breach and enjoined defendants from communicating with Marsh employees about Howden or soliciting them |
| Enforcement of non-solicitation of Marsh clients | Defendants solicited Marsh clients using confidential information; several clients followed defendants to Howden | Disputes over protectable interest and timing of solicitations; seeks to preserve competition | Court likely to find breach and enjoined defendants from communicating with existing Marsh clients about Howden or soliciting them |
| Misuse/disclosure of confidential information | Defendants accessed and used Marsh confidential client and personnel data (pricing, renewal timelines, comps) to target solicitations | Marsh is already contractually protected; damages sufficient remedy | Court found Marsh likely to succeed and enjoined any use or disclosure of Marsh confidential information |
| Irreparable harm | Loss of client relationships, employees, and disclosure of trade information causes harms not fully compensable by money | Alleged harms are past or quantifiable; injunction would stifle competition | Court found irreparable harm likely and granted limited preliminary injunctive relief |
| Balance of equities & public interest | Enforcing valid contracts and preventing irreparable harm favors Marsh; narrowly tailored relief preserves status quo | Injunction would impair defendants’ ability to compete and public interest in competition | Court found balance/public interest favor limited, status‑quo injunction mirroring contractual obligations |
Key Cases Cited
- Benisek v. Lamone, 585 U.S. 155 (statement that preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (preliminary-injunction standard requiring likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, public interest)
- Wright v. Giuliani, 230 F.3d 543 (higher showing required when injunction would alter the status quo)
- Nat'l Market Share, Inc. v. Sterling Nat'l Bank, 392 F.3d 520 (elements of breach of contract claim)
- Natsource LLC v. Paribello, 151 F. Supp. 2d 465 (protectable interest in shielding workforce from targeted solicitation)
- Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians v. New York State Dep't of Financial Services, 769 F.3d 105 (balance-of-equities analysis for preliminary injunction)
- Estée Lauder Cos. Inc. v. Batra, 430 F. Supp. 2d 158 (irreparable harm from risk of misuse/disclosure of confidential information)