2:24-cv-00034
D. UtahJul 16, 2024Background
- Vivint sued four former employees (Rossiter, Andersen, Lords, Shaw) and their new employer, Sunrun, alleging breach of non-compete, non-solicitation, and non-disclosure clauses, as well as tortious interference and trade secret misappropriation.
- All individual defendants held significant leadership roles in Vivint's sales hierarchy and subsequently moved with portions of their teams to Sunrun following aggressive recruitment and incentive offers from Sunrun.
- The relevant employment contracts contain restrictive covenants, including non-solicitation and non-compete clauses that the individual defendants allegedly breached.
- Vivint sought a preliminary injunction to halt further contract breaches, trade secret misappropriation, and interference by Sunrun.
- The court conducted a full evidentiary hearing but ultimately denied Vivint’s motion for a preliminary injunction on all grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforcement of Non-Solicitation | Vivint: Defendants are recruiting Vivint employees in breach; injunction is needed to prevent irreparable loss. | Defendants: Past recruitment does not show ongoing risk; money damages suffice. | Denied—No irreparable harm shown. |
| Enforcement of Non-Compete (RSU) | Vivint: Defendants’ work at Sunrun violates non-compete; contract enforceable here. | Defendants: Forum selection requires litigation in Delaware; no irreparable harm. | Denied—No irreparable harm; clause can be litigated in Utah. |
| Tortious Interference by Sunrun | Vivint: Sunrun is intentionally causing contractual breaches by hiring Vivint employees. | Sunrun: Vivint has not proved irreparable injury or ongoing threat. | Denied—No showing of irreparable harm. |
| Misappropriation/Use of Trade Secrets | Vivint: Defendants accessed and used confidential/trade secret info for Sunrun’s benefit. | Defendants: No evidence confidential/trade secret info was misused. | Denied—No likelihood of success on merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gen. Motors Corp. v. Urban Gorilla, LLC, 500 F.3d 1222 (10th Cir. 2007) (sets standard for preliminary injunction, requiring irreparable harm)
- Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968 (1997) (preliminary injunction is extraordinary and must be shown by clear evidence)
- Schrier v. Univ. of Colo., 427 F.3d 1253 (10th Cir. 2005) (reinforces stringent standard for granting preliminary injunctions)
- Dominion Video Satellite, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 356 F.3d 1256 (10th Cir. 2004) (irreparable harm requirement and calculation of damages)