Robert Kuntz, Kunodu, Inc., and B-K Interests, LLC v. EVI, LLC
999 N.E.2d 425
Ind. Ct. App.2013Background
- Kuntz operated auto electric parts business since 1976 and owned Kunodu, Inc. d/b/a Auto Electric; he sold Kunodu assets to JS Hare in 2007 under multiple agreements including a covenant not to compete.
- JS Hare’s assets were later sold to EVI, with EVI acquiring the Lease and the Noncompete Agreement through the asset sale to JS Hare on December 12, 2011.
- The Lease expired March 31, 2012; EVI began managing JS Hare’s business at 709 East Washington Street and later acquired JS Hare’s rights under the Lease and Noncompete.
- Kuntz learned that EVI was managing JS Hare and engaged in activities potentially violating the Noncompete between late 2011 and early 2012; EVI sued on July 18, 2012 seeking a preliminary injunction.
- The trial court granted the preliminary injunction and later increased the attorney-fee award against Kuntz; on appeal, the court affirmed the injunction, held that the noncompete extension was improper, and reversed the attorney-fee award, remanding for further proceedings.
- The court ultimately affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preliminary injunction abuse of discretion | Kuntz contends injunction wrongfully enforces noncompete. | EVI argues prima facie breach supports injunction. | Not abused; injunction upheld. |
| Extension of noncompete duration | Extension beyond October 7, 2014 improper at injunction stage. | Noncompete permits extension for violations. | Extension improper; vacated at this stage. |
| Attorney fees after injunction | Fees awarded under the agreement should not be granted at injunction stage. | Prevailing-party rule justifies fees on merits. | Reversed; fees not recoverable at preliminary injunction stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Apple Glen Crossing, LLC v. Trademark Retail, Inc., 784 N.E.2d 484 (Ind. 2003) (standard for preliminary injunction and need for findings of fact)
- Norlund v. Faust, 675 N.E.2d 1142 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (injunction considerations and irreparable harm)
- Robert’s Hair Designers, Inc. v. Pearson, 780 N.E.2d 858 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (injunctions enforcing noncompete covenants)
- AGS Capital Corp., Inc. v. Prod. Action Int’l, LLC, 884 N.E.2d 294 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (status of injunctive relief and preservation of rights)