Nations Lending Corporation v. Gomez, 1:24-cv-00222

Nations Lending Corporation sued former branch manager Roland Gomez, seeking damages and injunctive relief for alleged breaches of employment-related agreements.
Gomez allegedly violated non-compete and confidentiality clauses after moving to a competitor shortly after resigning from Nations Lending.
Nations Lending claims Gomez solicited clients, misused confidential information, and failed to repay a $150,000 bonus that was contingent on 24 months of employment.
Most claims (Counts Two through Six) sought injunctive relief; Count One sought repayment of the bonus.
Gomez moved to dismiss the case, arguing that both the employment and bonus agreements require all disputes to be arbitrated.
The employment agreement contains an exception allowing court actions for injunctive relief, which Nations Lending argued applied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is arbitration mandatory under the agreements?	Claims for injunctive relief fall under an exception to arbitration, so the court can hear those claims.	All disputes must be arbitrated; plaintiff has not properly pursued injunctive relief in court.	Arbitration is mandatory; exception does not apply because injunctive relief was not timely or properly sought.
Does the court have jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief?	Exception in the arbitration clause permits court jurisdiction for injunctions against agreement violations.	Exception applies only if a restraining order or injunction is actively pursued, which plaintiff did not do.	Court cannot exercise injunction jurisdiction because Nations Lending has not sought a TRO or preliminary injunction.
Are all claims, including federal trade secrets claims, arbitrable?	No explicit argument to exclude federal claims from arbitration.	All claims fall within arbitration scope; Congress permits arbitration of trade secrets claims.	Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act claims are arbitrable; full dispute ordered to arbitration.
Should the case be stayed or dismissed pending arbitration?	No specific request.	Sought dismissal based on arbitration clause.	Case stayed pending arbitration, per binding Supreme Court precedent.

Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440 (enforces national policy favoring arbitration agreements under the FAA)
First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (contract law governs questions of arbitrability)
Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 514 U.S. 52 (arbitration agreements enforced according to their terms)
E.E.O.C. v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279 (courts do not override parties’ intent in arbitration agreements)
Stout v. J.D. Byrider, 228 F.3d 709 (steps for determining whether to compel arbitration)