Stinsons Industrial Maintenance, Inc. v. PMC Group N.A., Inc.
2:22-cv-02253
W.D. Tenn.May 12, 2022Background
- Stinson’s Industrial Maintenance (Tennessee) provided industrial-maintenance services to a PMC entity at a Memphis facility; Stinson’s ceased that relationship on November 3, 2021.
- Stinson’s alleges PMC (through its staffing agency Aerotek) poached multiple employees, including John Favre Jr., in violation of Favre’s Agreement Not to Compete with Stinson’s; Favre resigned Feb. 24, 2022 and began work through Aerotek allegedly assigned to PMC Biogenix.
- Plaintiff sued PMC Group N.A. (a Delaware corporation) for breach of the noncompete and tortious interference and moved for a TRO/preliminary injunction to stop further employee recruitment.
- Defendant (PMC Group N.A.) contends the proper operating party was PMC Biogenix (a Tennessee corporation), that PMC Group N.A. does not control hiring at PMC Biogenix, and that Favre is employed by Aerotek—not a PMC entity.
- Central disputes: (1) which corporate entity is the proper defendant and whether PMC Group N.A. controls PMC Biogenix; (2) whether the noncompete applied after Stinson’s severed its relationship; and (3) whether Stinson’s delayed seeking emergency relief and can show irreparable harm.
- The court concluded Stinson’s failed to show a strong likelihood of success or imminent irreparable harm (and that injunctive relief could affect nonparties), and therefore denied the TRO/preliminary injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper defendant / corporate control | PMC Group N.A. directs PMC Biogenix and is responsible for poaching | PMC Biogenix is a separate entity that contracted with Stinson’s; PMC Group N.A. does not control hiring | Plaintiff failed to show PMC Group N.A. was the correct or controlling party; uncertainty defeats TRO against named defendant |
| Breach of noncompete — applicability | Favre’s move to work at a PMC facility violated his one-year covenant | Agreement prohibits employment only at facilities where Stinson’s already conducts business; Stinson’s had ceased doing business with PMC Biogenix before Favre’s hire | Court adopted the present-tense, narrow reading; noncompete likely did not apply at time of alleged breach, so low likelihood of success |
| Tortious interference | PMC (or its staffing agent) solicited Stinson’s employees, intending to terminate Stinson’s relations | No actionable interference: relationship was with PMC Biogenix (not PMC Group N.A.); no showing of improper means or damages | Plaintiff unlikely to satisfy first element (existing business relationship with named defendant) and thus unlikely to succeed |
| Irreparable harm / timing | Loss of employees, goodwill, and revenue justifies emergency relief | Plaintiff waited ~two years to seek injunctive relief; offers no concrete proof of lost customers or employees to PMC entities | Delay and lack of concrete, hard-to-calculate harms weigh against finding irreparable injury; injunction denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Enchant Christmas Light Maze & Mkt. Ltd. v. Glowco, LLC, 958 F.3d 532 (6th Cir. 2020) (TRO is an extraordinary remedy)
- S. Glazer’s Distributors of Ohio, LLC v. Great Lakes Brewing Co., 860 F.3d 844 (6th Cir. 2017) (preliminary-injunction factors and irreparable-harm discussion)
- Overstreet v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cty. Gov’t, 305 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2002) (standard for preliminary injunctions)
- Leary v. Daeschner, 228 F.3d 729 (6th Cir. 2000) (movant’s burden for injunctive relief)
- Friendship Materials, Inc. v. Michigan Brick, Inc., 679 F.2d 100 (6th Cir. 1982) (serious-questions balancing approach)
- Allmand v. Pavletic, 292 S.W.3d 618 (Tenn. 2009) (contract interpretation; clear language controls)
- Columbus Med. Servs., LLC v. David Thomas & Liberty Healthcare Corp., 308 S.W.3d 368 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009) (discussing opportunistic disintermediation and noncompete issues)
- Basicomputer Corp. v. Scott, 973 F.2d 507 (6th Cir. 1992) (money damages may be inadequate where damages are difficult to calculate)
- Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61 (U.S. 1974) (mere monetary harms and delays can defeat injunctions)