LICO, INC. Appellant
ADAM DOUGAL D/B/A PATRIOT SUPPLY
from the Order Entered August 22, 2018 In the Court of Common
Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at No(s): GD
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
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. For the reasons discussed below, we
dismiss this appeal as moot.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
timely appeal followed. Both Appellant and the trial court
complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
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
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 ...