Matthew Pantano v. Phillips Service Industries Inc
332748
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 17, 2017Background
- Plaintiff accepted a job offer from Phillips Service Industries, Inc. (PSI) conditioned on signing a Confidentiality and Non-competition Agreement drafted and executed with PSI.
- Plaintiff worked for over two years at Penn State’s Applied Research Laboratory as a Sciaky, Inc. employee; Sciaky is a PSI subsidiary and PSI handled Sciaky’s HR functions.
- Penn State offered plaintiff a Research & Development Engineer position; plaintiff resigned from Sciaky to accept it.
- Penn State rescinded its offer after Sciaky threatened suit under the non-competition clause plaintiff had signed with PSI.
- Plaintiff sued seeking declaratory relief that the non-competition clause did not bar the Penn State employment and asserted related tort claims (tortious interference, unfair competition, civil conspiracy). The trial court granted summary disposition for defendants; plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Declaratory judgment re: non-compete | Non-compete shouldn’t bar Penn State job; Sciaky improperly enforced PSI’s contract | Moot because Penn State rescinded offer and the one-year restriction expired | Dismissed as moot; summary disposition affirmed |
| Enforceability of IP-assignment under statute of frauds | MCL 566.132(1)(f) would bar Sciaky from enforcing the IP assignment provision | Complaint did not seek relief as to IP-assignment; court need not decide | Court declined to address statute-of-frauds argument |
| Enforceability of non-compete absent direct employment | Agreement was with PSI, not Sciaky (plaintiff’s actual employer), so non-compete is void outside direct employment | Defendants relied on enforcement but court found issue unnecessary to decide | Court declined to address issue due to mootness |
| Adequacy of consideration for non-compete | Non-compete lacked valid consideration | Defendants asserted adequate consideration; factual issue unnecessary post-mootness | Court declined to address and held argument abandoned for inadequate briefing |
| Remaining tort claims (tortious interference, unfair competition, civil conspiracy) | Should be remanded for trial; factual record supports claims | Trial court dismissed these claims on the merits | Plaintiff abandoned appellate challenge by failing to meaningfully argue errors; dismissals affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109 (1999) (standard for reviewing summary disposition and (C)(10) motions)
- Rory v. Continental Ins. Co., 473 Mich. 457 (2005) (contract interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Gorman v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 302 Mich. App. 113 (2013) (standards regarding MCR 2.116(C)(8) review)
- People v. Richmond, 486 Mich. 29 (2010) (mootness doctrine explained)
- Mitcham v. Detroit, 355 Mich. 182 (1959) (appellate abandonment where briefs fail to develop arguments)