31 F.4th 356
6th Cir.2022Background
- Cromer was a Union Home Mortgage "managing loan officer" who signed an Ohio-law employment agreement with restrictive covenants: (1) a noncompete barring employment "in the same or similar capacity" with a competitor within 100 miles (until Oct. 1, 2022); (2) a nonsolicit (until Oct. 1, 2023); (3) a confidentiality clause; and (4) an automatic one-year extension if a covenant is violated.
- In Oct.–Nov. 2020 Cromer solicited Homeside, forwarded customer files and preapproval materials to Homeside, and helped recruit two team members (Latronica and Boots) who later joined Homeside.
- Cromer was escorted out of Union Home, believed he had been terminated, and then executed a Homeside employment contract in Jan. 2021 as a salaried, "non‑producing" branch manager who performed managerial and some limited customer-facing tasks.
- Union Home sued Cromer and Homeside and obtained a district-court preliminary injunction enjoining Cromer and those acting in concert (including Homeside) from: (1) "competing with Union Home" within 100 miles; (2) soliciting Union Home employees; and (3) using or disclosing Union Home confidential information—without defining "competing" or setting a time limit.
- Defendants appealed, arguing the injunction violated Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d) for vagueness and overbreadth, and that the district court failed to assess whether the noncompete is reasonable under Ohio law and whether Union Home met the preliminary‑injunction factors.
- The Sixth Circuit vacated the injunction and remanded, holding the order vague, unlimited in duration, potentially overbroad beyond the contract, and that the district court failed to analyze enforceability of the covenant under Ohio precedent (Raimonde factors).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the injunction satisfies Rule 65(d) specificity | Union Home relied on the Agreement and the district court’s findings to justify broad injunction language ("competing with Union Home"). | Cromer/Homeside argued the order is impermissibly vague—"competing" is undefined, and injunction refers to other documents. | Vacated: injunction fails Rule 65(d) because "competing" is vague and the order does not describe proscribed acts with required specificity. |
| Whether the injunction has a permissible duration | Union Home treated injunction as enforcing contract covenants (which carry fixed durations and an extension clause). | Defendants argued the injunction has no time limit and ignores the Agreement’s extension clause. | Vacated: injunction has no temporal limit; Rule 65(d) requires a definite duration and reference to the extension clause matters. |
| Whether the injunction exceeds the scope of the written noncompete | Union Home sought to prevent competitive harm and protect trade secrets/confidential information. | Defendants argued the Agreement barred only employment "in the same or similar capacity," not all competition, so the injunction is overbroad. | Vacated: injunction is broader than the Agreement (prohibits all competition irrespective of role/duties) and risks restraining lawful conduct. |
| Whether the district court properly found likelihood of success (enforceability under Ohio law) | Union Home argued covenants are enforceable and Cromer breached them (and misused confidential info). | Defendants argued Raimonde factors were not analyzed and the covenant may be unreasonable under Ohio law. | Vacated: district court failed to apply/analyze Ohio's Raimonde factors; without that analysis, Union Home cannot show likelihood of success, so injunction cannot stand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmidt v. Lessard, 414 U.S. 473 (1974) (Rule 65(d) requires specific, unambiguous injunction terms)
- Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n v. Phila. Marine Trade Ass’n, 389 U.S. 64 (1967) (vague injunctions reversing contempt orders)
- Granny Goose Foods v. Brotherhood of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423 (1974) (courts must provide definite relief; injunction duration concerns)
- Mallet & Co. v. Lacayo, 16 F.4th 364 (3d Cir. 2021) (injunction must identify specific trade secrets and cannot broadly bar employment for competing entities)
- Patriot Homes, Inc. v. Forest River Hous., Inc., 512 F.3d 412 (7th Cir. 2008) (injunctions enjoining use of "confidential information" must specify the information)
- BankDirect Capital Fin., LLC v. Capital Premium Fin., Inc., 912 F.3d 1054 (7th Cir. 2019) (courts must pin down ambiguous injunctive terms)
- Raimonde v. Van Vlerah, 325 N.E.2d 544 (Ohio 1975) (Ohio standard: noncompetes enforceable only if reasonable under three-factor test)
- Lake Land Emp’t Grp. v. Columber, 804 N.E.2d 27 (Ohio 2004) (only reasonable noncompetition agreements are enforceable)
- City of Pontiac Retired Emps. Ass’n v. Schimmel, 751 F.3d 427 (6th Cir. 2014) (four-factor preliminary injunction test)