Citation:
Nasc Services, Inc v. Jervis 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40502 (U.S. Dist. Ct. D. N.J. 2008)

Parties: * Plaintiff – Nasc Services and Russell * Defendant – Jervis, Moses, Jones, Barrow, Moffett, and Nee * Appellant – N/A * Appellee– N/A
History:
The plaintiff motioned against the defendants under the notion that they violated a covenant in their employee contracts. If the defendants were to be found guilty then the consequences would be an oppressive and unfair scenario. Therefore, the motion for preliminary injunction was denied in favor of the defendants.

Facts:
The defendants, upon being hired by Russell, entered into contracts which contained three relevant covenants in this case; not to compete with the plaintiffs, not to solicit the plaintiff’ customers, and not to disclose the plaintiffs’ confidential information. The defendants, for many alleged reasons, separated themselves from the plaintiff and began working for a competitor, Red Bull New York, between August and November 2007. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants were contradiction the covenants mentioned above because of his immediate drop in customers since the defendants left. The defendants claim that all of the information can be readily found on the internet and that they had not disclosed any confidential information. If the defendants were to be found guilty then the consequences would be an oppressive and unfair scenario. Therefore, the motion for preliminary injunction was denied in favor of the defendants.
Plaintiff’s Theory:
The plaintiff claimed that the now former employees were in violation of their contract and has caused his business hardship, therefore they should be terminated and not allowed to work in competition with his company.
Defendant’s Theory:
They were not in violation of the contract and that all of the information that they allegedly were providing could be obtained by public sources such as the internet. Further, that they had not provided any confidential information with Red Bull, nor were they exposed to information that represents trade secrets.

Issue:
Did the defendants violate their employee contract with Russell and Nasc Services Inc.?

Holding:
No, the defendants did not violate the covenants alleged in the employee contract. Rationale:
The plaintiffs reasoning for the immediate drop in costumers was all information that was public and could be found on the internet and the defendants were not exposed to information that represents trade secrets. Furthermore, the results if the defendants found guilty would create an unfair and oppressive scenario.

Result: The plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction was denied in favor of the defendants.

What do you think? Was this case decided correctly? Why or why not?
Yes, I do think the case was decided correctly. The defendants should have the right to stay in the career field of their choice and knowledge. The information that they were allegedly providing was all available online and the result if the defendants were found guilty was unfair. The defendants could not have worked in the career that they obviously knew and loved anywhere in the world and some would have been deported.