Murphree v. Yancey Bros. Co.
311 Ga. App. 744
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Murphree worked in heavy-equipment sales first for Carlton Company, then continued in the same role after Yancey Brothers Company purchased Carlton in 2002.
- Murphree signed a two-year nonsolicitation restrictive covenant when he began employment with Yancey, with the period shortened to actual employment if less than two years.
- Toward the end of his tenure, Murphree discussed with Flint Equipment Company, a top Yancey competitor, and later began employment with Flint in the same southwest Georgia territory.
- Before leaving Yancey, Murphree copied a substantial portion of Yancey files from his company laptop to a thumb drive and then to Flint-laptop, including proprietary customer information.
- After Murphree resigned on July 13, 2010, he contacted former Yancey clients and submitted bids on their behalf for Flint, triggering Yancey’s suit for injunctive relief and damages.
- The trial court granted an interlocutory injunction enforcing the nonsolicitation covenant and prohibiting misappropriation of trade secrets.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the nonsolicitation covenant reasonable in scope? | Murphree and Flint argue the scope is overbroad and undefined. | Yancey contends the covenant reasonably protects customer relationships. | Yes; covenant reasonable in duration, territory, and scope. |
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion in granting the interlocutory injunction? | Discretion misused due to overbreadth and lack of clarity. | Equitable relief warranted given the covenant's reasonableness and risk of harm. | No abuse of discretion; injunction affirmed. |
| Does alleged misappropriation of trade secrets provide an independent basis for injunction? | Murphree misappropriated confidential information copying to Flint. | If the covenant is enforceable, that suffices for injunctive relief; misappropriation is separate. | Not reached; court upheld covenant and injunction on reasonableness grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pittman v. Harbin Clinic Professional Ass'n, 263 Ga. 66, 428 S.E.2d 328 (1993) (equitable relief related to contract construction; appellate jurisdiction)
- Essex Group, Inc. v. Southwire Co., 269 Ga. 553, 501 S.E.2d 501 (1998) (discretion in granting interlocutory injunctive relief; standard relatively deferential)
- Reardigan v. Shaw Indus., Inc., 238 Ga.App. 142, 518 S.E.2d 144 (1999) (contract construction; de novo review of reasonableness; strict scrutiny for covenants)
- Baggett v. 231 Ga.App. 289, 498 S.E.2d 346 (1998) (nonsolicitation covenants; limits on scope and activities)
- Mouyal v. Grace & Co., Dearborn Division, 262 Ga. 464, 422 S.E.2d 529 (1992) (foundational treatment of restrictive covenants; geographic scope considerations)