Massimo Motor Sports LLC v. Shandong Odes Industry Co, 3:21-cv-02180

Background

Massimo Motor Sports sold Odes-branded ATVs under an exclusive distributor agreement; Odes retained IP rights. The distributor agreement expired in Oct. 2021 and the parties later sued several Odes-related entities.
Nathan Threet was Massimo’s Director of Dealer Development, later COO, and signed an Employment/Confidentiality/Nondisclosure/Non‑Compete Agreement promising not to compete in Texas for two years and not to disclose Massimo confidential information.
Massimo alleges Threet secretly began working for Odes/Shandong (Massimo’s competitor) while still employed, organized Odes USA in Texas, used an aodes.com email, and communicated with dealers.
Massimo sued Threet for breach of contract and trade‑secret misappropriation and moved for a TRO/PI three weeks after learning of his conduct; the court previously denied injunctive relief as to the entity defendants for delay but reserved ruling on Threet.
The court found Massimo substantially likely to succeed on the enforceability of the non‑compete and on breach, concluded there was a substantial threat of irreparable harm (risk of trade‑secret disclosure and loss of customers), and granted a 14‑day TRO (effective upon posting a $1,000 bond).
The TRO enjoins Threet, in Texas, from contacting Massimo customers he worked with in the last 12 months of employment and from using or disclosing Massimo confidential information/trade secrets; limited discovery and expedited briefing on a preliminary injunction were ordered.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Enforceability of non‑compete	Threet agreed to a Texas‑limited two‑year non‑compete tied to Massimo providing confidential information, so it is ancillary and enforceable	Threet disputed memory/validity of signing and contended his work was limited consulting not competing in Texas	Court: Likely enforceable — Massimo provided confidential info and covenant is reasonable in time, area, scope (but three‑year customer look‑back is unreasonable)
Breach of non‑compete	Threet began working for Odes/Shandong during employment and thereafter in Texas and in a similar role (dealer/development contacts)	Threet says he only assisted with registration/licenses, not dealer sales, dealer contacts, or using Massimo confidential info, and did not compete in Texas	Court: Likely breached — evidence he assisted Odes in Texas, organized Odes USA, used Odes email, and communicated with dealers
Risk of disclosure / irreparable harm	Threet had access to trade secrets/customer lists and is in a comparable position at a direct competitor, so disclosure is very possible and irreparable	Threet denies using or disclosing trade secrets and limits his role to non‑sales tasks	Court: Massimo showed substantial threat of irreparable harm; risk of trade‑secret disclosure and loss of goodwill justified injunction
Balance of harms & public interest	Enjoining discrete activities preserves Massimo’s business and trade secrets while allowing Threet to earn income; public interest favors enforcement of reasonable non‑competes	TRO would limit Threet’s work with a competitor and impose hardship	Court: Balance favors Massimo; injunction narrow and serves public interest in protecting confidential info and encouraging employer investment

Key Cases Cited

Opulent Life Church v. City of Holly Springs, 697 F.3d 279 (5th Cir. 2012) (elements and standards for temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions)
Alex Sheshunoff Mgmt. Servs., L.P. v. Johnson, 209 S.W.3d 644 (Tex. 2006) (confidential information/supporting consideration can make a non‑compete ancillary and enforceable)
FMC Corp. v. Varco Int’l, Inc., 677 F.2d 500 (5th Cir. 1982) (trade‑secret owners may show irreparable harm and injunction is appropriate where disclosure appears very possible)
Peat Marwick Main & Co. v. Haass, 818 S.W.2d 381 (Tex. 1991) (customer‑contact prohibitions are reasonable only for customers the employee worked with in the prior 12 months)
Marsh USA Inc. v. Cook, 354 S.W.3d 764 (Tex. 2011) (public interest supports enforcing reasonable non‑compete covenants)
White v. Carlucci, 862 F.2d 1209 (5th Cir. 1989) (a TRO is an extraordinary remedy and requires a clear showing)