It took one day of argument before the judge, our clients flying in across the country for two days of witness testimony (with a blizzard in between), and substantial motion practice, but our clients were able to return home to the West coast, and sell nearly $350,000 worth of merchandise that had been lying idle pending the Court's determination of the plaintiff's application for a TRO, and whether their sale of these materials could go forward, or whether our clients would have to take a loss on these goods. (Our clients had already spent the money to manufacture the goods).
And that was only part of it.
The plaintiff claimed that by the terms of the parties' non-compete agreement, our client was barred from conducting the lion's share of their existing business - even though, according to the plaintiff - they hadn't promised our clients anything concrete in return.
Unfortunately for our clients, it was apparent that the plaintiff had vastly greater financial resources to litigate this case.
Fortunately for our clients, though, we were able to poke some significant holes in the plaintiff's case on cross-examination, pointing out that even had our clients not competed or (allegedly) diverted the clients at issue, plaintiff still faced stiff competition for the business, and could not state, with any degree of certainty that they had a lock on that business.
Consequently, following the second day of testimony, we were able to work out a settlement with the plaintiff's attorneys, whereby our clients would be able to sell that inventory (which would have been a total loss), and to limit the terms of the earlier non-compete agreement that would allow our clients' business to grow and thrive.
Even better, our client would not be liable for the plaintff's legal fees (despite a provision in the underlying non-compete agreement to the contrary).
