951 F.3d 393
6th Cir.2020Background
- Radiant Global Logistics sued its Detroit manager, Charles Furstenau, and his new employer BTX Detroit for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets after Furstenau left and solicited several former Radiant employees.
- Radiant alleged Furstenau forwarded Radiant emails to his personal account containing revenues, margins, costs, projections, shipment data, and a list of preferred shippers.
- The district court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining Furstenau and other former Radiant employees from contacting certain customers and carriers for six months and from disclosing or using Radiant confidential information/trade secrets indefinitely.
- BTX appealed and sought a stay; this court denied the stay, so the six-month contact restriction expired while the appeal was pending. BTX did not challenge the trade-secret portion of the injunction on appeal.
- The Sixth Circuit dismissed the appeal as moot, declined to vacate the district court’s order, and left open the merits for resolution in the ongoing district-court litigation.
Issues
| Issue | Radiant's Argument | BTX's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of six-month non-contact restriction | Expired restriction leaves no live controversy; appeal moot | Injunction should be reviewable despite expiration | Moot: expired restriction cannot be remedied on appeal; claim dismissed |
| Justiciability of indefinite trade-secret restriction | BTX waived appellate review by not challenging that part | Concern it may bar employees' general knowledge; live dispute remains | Not justiciable on this appeal because BTX did not challenge it; district court should address any scope concerns |
| Applicability of "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception | Exception does not apply here; eventual final judgment will allow appellate review | Preliminary injunctions may evade review due to short duration | Exception not met; court may review on appeal from final judgment instead |
| Whether vacatur of the district-court order is required when appeal is moot | Vacatur unnecessary; BTX forfeited request and preliminary injunctions carry no preclusive effect | Requested vacatur to avoid precedential/preclusive effects | Denied: BTX forfeited request and vacatur inappropriate for a mooted preliminary-injunction appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66 (2013) (Article III case-or-controversy requirement)
- Fialka-Feldman v. Oakland Univ. Bd. of Trs., 639 F.3d 711 (6th Cir. 2011) (mootness during litigation; dismissal)
- Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U.S. 9 (1992) (mootness principles)
- Univ. of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390 (1981) (limitations on appellate relief from preliminary injunctions)
- U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P'ship, 513 U.S. 18 (1994) (mootness and forfeiture principles)
- Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998) (capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception)
- Lewis v. Cont'l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472 (1990) (scope of the repetition/evading-review exception)
- Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009) (limits on interlocutory appeals from discovery orders)
- United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950) (vacatur doctrine when case becomes moot)
- Gjertsen v. Bd. of Election Comm'rs, 751 F.2d 199 (7th Cir. 1984) (preliminary injunctions generally lack preclusive effect; vacatur often unnecessary)