Legal Articles, Employment
Requisite Proof to Demonstrate Irreparable Harm in Connection to Breach of Non-Compete
VBrick Systems, Inc. v. Stephens, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45835
Identifying de facto Geographical Limitations in Connecticut Non-Compete Agreement
New Haven Tobacco Company operated a wholesale tobacco business and entered into an employment contract with Mr. Frank Perrelli in December 1980. As part of the contract, Mr. Perrelli signed a non-compete agreement wherein he agreed to “not directly or indirectly sell products similar to those of the Employer (New Haven Tobacco Co.) to any of the customers he has dealt with or has discovered and became aware of while in the employ of the Employer for a period of twenty-four months from the termination of his employment”.
Imminent Risk of Irreparable Harm is Requisite for Enforcing Non-Compete Agreements
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co. v. Francavilla, 191 F.Supp.2d 270
Retention of Confidential Information is a Clear Breach of Non-Compete According to Connecticut Court
TyMetrix, Inc. v. Szymonik, 2006 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3865
De Facto New Employment Relationship Precludes Restrictive Covenant Enforcement By Successor Employer
Kelly Services, Inc. v. Savic, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83930
Both Parties Must Sign Non-Compete Agreement To Make It Legally Binding
Fairfaxx Corp. v. Nickelson, 2000 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2340
The Enforceability of Liquidated Damages Provisions in Non-Compete Agreements
The Enforceability of Liquidated Damages Provisions in Non-Compete Agreements
A Summary of Connecticut vs. New York Law on Enforcing Non-Competes
We here in the Westport, Connecticut office of Maya Murphy, P.C. are often asked about the enforceability of a non-compete covenant under either Connecticut or New York law. As many Fairfield County residents work in New York, we thought it appropriate to give a quick summary of the two approaches to the issue. The short answer is that Connecticut and New York laws are similar, but not the same.
Physician Adequately Alleges Violation of CUTPA Against His Former Counsel
In a decision, the Superior Court for the Judicial District of Stamford/Norwalk held that a plaintiff physician adequately alleged a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (“CUTPA”) against his former counsel. More specifically, the Court held that, as alleged, the defendant law firm’s actions were entrepreneurial in nature, and, thus, were not subject to immunity that ordinarily attaches to conduct involving legal representation. In reaching its decision, the Court relied on the following facts, as alleged in the plaintiff’s complaint:
