Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lico, Inc. v. Dougal

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

August 9, 2019

LICO, INC. Appellant
v.
ADAM DOUGAL D/B/A PATRIOT SUPPLY
v.
SAMUEL LICHTENSTEIN

          Appeal from the Order Entered August 22, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at No(s): GD 17-11735

          BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

          OPINION

          DUBOW, J.

         In this appeal, Appellant, Lico, Inc., appeals from the trial court's August 22, 2018 Order denying Appellant's Motion for Special and Preliminary Injunction in which it sought to enforce its non-compete agreement with Appellee, Adam Dougal.[1] For the reasons discussed below, we dismiss this appeal as moot.

         The facts and procedural history, as gleaned from the record, are as follows. Appellant, located in McKeesport, manufactures, sells, and distributes janitorial and paper good supplies. In June 2006, Appellant hired Appellee to work as a salesman in the McKeesport area. Appellee's compensation package consisted of a straight salary plus an additional 10% commission if he reached $250, 000 in sales.

         Five years later, in 2011, Appellant received information that Appellee had begun working for a competitor on the side. Instead of terminating Appellee's employment, Appellant allowed Appellee to remain employed in exchange for Appellee signing a non-compete agreement. The non-compete agreement had a two-year term beginning when his employment terminated and restricted Appellee from working within a 100-mile radius of McKeesport during that two-year period. Appellee signed the non-compete agreement on March 24, 2011.

         Appellee remained employed by Appellant until he resigned on July 3, 2017. Following Appellee's resignation, Appellant contacted Appellee's customers to inform them that Appellee had resigned. Appellant then learned that Appellee had continued to service Appellant's customers by starting a new company.

         On August 22, 2017, Appellant filed a Complaint raising claims of Tortious Interference with Business Relations and Unfair Competition. Appellee filed an Answer with New Matter and a Counterclaim on November 22, 2017. On February 27, 2018, Appellant filed the instant Motion for Special Relief and Preliminary Injunction.

         After a one-day hearing, the trial court denied Appellant's Motion on April 11, 2018. Appellant requested, and the court granted reconsideration of its Order. Following an additional hearing, on August 22, 2018, the trial court confirmed its April 11, 2018 Order denying Appellant injunctive relief.

         This timely appeal followed. Both Appellant and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

         Appellant raises the following two issues on appeal:

1. Assuming as the lower [c]ourt did[] that the increase in [Appellee's] compensation and commission package in 2011 was valid consideration for the non-compete agreement, did the [t]rial [c]ourt err in determining that the compensation package was materially changed before [Appellee's] separation from [Appellant, ] thus causing the consideration to fail?
2. Did the lower [c]ourt err in determining that [Appellant's] change in [Appellee's] compensation package to a straight commission with a retraction of health benefits was a material change in [Appellee's] terms ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.