non-compete clause in Louisiana

2006See Baton Rouge Computer Sales, Inc., 767 So.2d at 765 . [16] The non-solicitation clauses do not include any listing of parishes or municipalities in which Hayden, Newman, and Tedder were supposed to refrain from soliciting VarTech's customers. [17] Although the court in Petroleum Helicopters, Inc. v. Untereker, 98-1816 (La.App. 3rd Cir.3/31/99), 731 So.2d 965 , writ denied, 99-1739 (La.8/5/99), 747 So.2d 40 , approved a non-compete clause where the affected parishes were identifiable, although not specified, in the clause, this court declined to follow Petroleum Helicopters, Inc. in Turner P

2002A fortiori, applying the AMCOM reasoning to the instant case, we find that the non-compete clause to be insufficiently specific; or, to quote from and follow Turner Professional Services, Ltd. v. Broussard, 99-2838, p. 4 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/12/00), 762 So.2d 184 , 186 writ denied XXXX-XXXX (La.9/29/00), 770 So.2d 356 : "In our opinion, Petroleum Helicopters goes too far, and we decline to follow it." [1] *1062 There are a number of reasons consistent with the policy disfavoring such agreements why we believe that the legislature intended to require that the employer be required to do more than j

2006See Baton Rouge Computer Sales, Inc., 767 So.2d at 765 . [16] The non-solicitation clauses do not include any listing of parishes or municipalities in which Hayden, Newman, and Tedder were supposed to refrain from soliciting VarTech's customers. [17] Although the court in Petroleum Helicopters, Inc. v. Untereker, 98-1816 (La.App. 3rd Cir.3/31/99), 731 So.2d 965 , writ denied, 99-1739 (La.8/5/99), 747 So.2d 40 , approved a non-compete clause where the affected parishes were identifiable, although not specified, in the clause, this court declined to follow Petroleum Helicopters, Inc. in Turner P

2001See Petroleum Helicopters, Inc. v. Untereker, 98-1816 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/31/99) , 731 So.2d 965 , writ denied, 99-1739 (8/5/99), 747 So.2d 40 . [12] This court specifically declined *413 to follow Petroleum Helicopters, Inc. in Turner Professional Services, Ltd. [13] Turner Professional Services, Ltd., 762 So.2d at 186 .

2006See Baton Rouge Computer Sales, Inc., 767 So.2d at 765 . [16] The non-solicitation clauses do not include any listing of parishes or municipalities in which Hayden, Newman, and Tedder were supposed to refrain from soliciting VarTech's customers. [17] Although the court in Petroleum Helicopters, Inc. v. Untereker, 98-1816 (La.App. 3rd Cir.3/31/99), 731 So.2d 965 , writ denied, 99-1739 (La.8/5/99), 747 So.2d 40 , approved a non-compete clause where the affected parishes were identifiable, although not specified, in the clause, this court declined to follow Petroleum Helicopters, Inc. in Turner P

2001See Petroleum Helicopters, Inc. v. Untereker, 98-1816 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/31/99) , 731 So.2d 965 , writ denied, 99-1739 (8/5/99), 747 So.2d 40 . [12] This court specifically declined *413 to follow Petroleum Helicopters, Inc. in Turner Professional Services, Ltd. [13] Turner Professional Services, Ltd., 762 So.2d at 186 .

2017In SWAT 24, 808 So.2d at 309 , the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized the courts’ ability to sever and reform a non-compete clause in accordance with the parties’ intent expressed in a severability clause.

2006See Id. [11] The pertinent language in the non-compete clause in the VarTech agreements executed by Hayden, Newman, and Tedder provided: [Y]ou shall not (except with the prior written consent of VarTech Systems Inc.), engage in the business of the Corporation for yourself or others, either directly or indirectly[.] The defendants urge that VarTech's inclusion of the phrase "or others" exceeded the limited exception of LSA-R.S. 23:921(C), thus rendering the non-compete clauses null and void as a matter of law.

2006See Baton Rouge Computer Sales, Inc., 767 So.2d at 765 . [16] The non-solicitation clauses do not include any listing of parishes or municipalities in which Hayden, Newman, and Tedder were supposed to refrain from soliciting VarTech's customers. [17] Although the court in Petroleum Helicopters, Inc. v. Untereker, 98-1816 (La.App. 3rd Cir.3/31/99), 731 So.2d 965 , writ denied, 99-1739 (La.8/5/99), 747 So.2d 40 , approved a non-compete clause where the affected parishes were identifiable, although not specified, in the clause, this court declined to follow Petroleum Helicopters, Inc. in Turner P

2004In Baton Rouge Computer Sales, Inc. v. Miller-Conrad, XXXX-XXXX (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/23/00), 767 So.2d 763 , the Court found that a non-compete clause was valid when there was no indication that the plaintiff engaged in any business other than computer sales as its name implies.

2006See Kimball, 809 So.2d at 412 .

2006Kimball, 809 So.2d at 412-13 . [18] We note, however, that the defendants claimed in their affidavits that all of DeepSouth's customers were located outside the state of Louisiana. [19] See LSA-C.C.P. arts. 3601, 3602. [20] The granting of injunctive relief is merely an interlocutory judgment calculated to prevent a party from suffering irreparable injury pending a final determination on the merits of its rights, and in such cases, to generally maintain and preserve the existing status pending a trial or a hearing on the ultimate issues.

2001See AMCOM of Louisiana, Incorporated v. Battson , 28,171 (La.App. 2 1/5/96), 666 So.2d 1227, 1228-1229 .

2001The fourth circuit in Medivision, Inc. v. Germer, 617 So.2d 69, 72-73 (La.App. 4 Cir.), writ denied, 619 So.2d 549 (1993), considered a non-compete clause which referred to the employer's health care sites.

2001The non-compete clause in the medical services agreement prevented a doctor: from "providing ophthalmological services at any location within ten miles of any office of the [eye care] Center existing during the term of this agreement." In the preamble to the Medical Service Agreement, the term "Center" is defined as "an eye care center currently located at 3434 Houma Boulevard, Metairie, Louisiana (collectively with the Meadowcrest Office [located in Gretna, Louisiana]) and any future additional offices in the Greater New Orleans Area." Medivision, Inc., 617 So.2d at 72 .

2001We need not address this issue because our decision renders it moot. [17] In the previous section, we affirmed the trial court's ruling that the non-compete clause was unenforceable and could not be reformed. [18] See Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development, 617 So.2d 880, 882 (La.1993). [19] This finding that the employment contract entitled ASBRI to terminate Dr. Kimball with or without cause renders moot the issues related to whether ASBRI had cause to terminate Dr. Kimball.

2001See Cellular One, Inc. v. Boyd, 94-1783, 94-1784, p. 1 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/3/95), 653 So.2d 30, 36 (Shortess, J., dissenting), writ denied, 95-1367 (9/15/95), 660 So.2d 449 ; see also Water Processing Technologies, Inc. v. Ridgeway, 618 So.2d 533, 536 (La.App. 4 Cir.1993), which stated: [T]hat limitation [imposed on an employee pursuant to a non-compete clause] may occur only in a restricted geographical area, "a specified parish or parishes, municipality or municipalities, or parts thereof," .... *412 We find that the non-competition clause included in the Distributorship Agreement fails to com

2001ASBRI contends the non-compete clause is not applicable in this matter because Dr. Kimball was not only an employee but also a shareholder; ASBRI cites Hawthorn, Waymouth & Carroll v. Johnson, 611 So.2d 645 (La.App. 1 Cir.1992) (which involved the departure of a partner, as opposed to an employee, from an accounting firm), and Louisiana Smoked Products, Inc., 96-1716 at 11-12, 696 So.2d at 1379-1380 (which involved competing corporations).

2001See Cellular One, Inc. v. Boyd, 94-1783, 94-1784, p. 1 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/3/95), 653 So.2d 30, 36 (Shortess, J., dissenting), writ denied, 95-1367 (9/15/95), 660 So.2d 449 ; see also Water Processing Technologies, Inc. v. Ridgeway, 618 So.2d 533, 536 (La.App. 4 Cir.1993), which stated: [T]hat limitation [imposed on an employee pursuant to a non-compete clause] may occur only in a restricted geographical area, "a specified parish or parishes, municipality or municipalities, or parts thereof," .... *412 We find that the non-competition clause included in the Distributorship Agreement fails to com

2001See Cellular One, Inc. v. Boyd, 94-1783, 94-1784, p. 1 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/3/95), 653 So.2d 30, 36 (Shortess, J., dissenting), writ denied, 95-1367 (9/15/95), 660 So.2d 449 ; see also Water Processing Technologies, Inc. v. Ridgeway, 618 So.2d 533, 536 (La.App. 4 Cir.1993), which stated: [T]hat limitation [imposed on an employee pursuant to a non-compete clause] may occur only in a restricted geographical area, "a specified parish or parishes, municipality or municipalities, or parts thereof," .... *412 We find that the non-competition clause included in the Distributorship Agreement fails to com