RGIS, LLC v. Keith Gerdes

Summary

The Sixth Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction enforcing a non-compete agreement and prohibiting trade secret misappropriation. The court held that the defendant waived his personal jurisdiction challenge by signing a forum-selection clause requiring litigation in Michigan, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling on the motion despite the defendant's failure to respond. The challenge to the non-compete portion was moot after its one-year term expired, but the trade secret injunction was proper because the plaintiff showed a likelihood of success on misappropriation claims under the Michigan Uniform Trade Secrets Act and Defend Trade Secrets Act, based on evidence of the defendant's deceptive conduct and failure to return company property.

Holdings

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion because Gerdes had an opportunity to respond under the local rules, the court had good reason to proceed without further delay, and the court allowed Gerdes to use his motion-to-dismiss arguments as opposition.
2. RGIS showed a likelihood of success that the forum-selection clause in the employment agreement constitutes a waiver of Gerdes's personal jurisdiction defense.
3. The challenge to the noncompete part of the injunction is moot because the one-year period expired by its own terms in May 2020, so the court cannot grant relief.
4. The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction because RGIS showed a likelihood of success on both the 'trade secret' and 'misappropriation' elements, and the remaining factors (irreparable harm, balance of equities, public interest) weighed in favor of the injunction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by ruling on the preliminary injunction motion without giving Gerdes an opportunity to respond.
2. Whether the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over Gerdes, making the injunction improper.
3. Whether the district court erred in granting the preliminary injunction on the merits of the breach-of-contract and misappropriation claims.

Disposition

affirmed