Glytec, LLC v. McFarland

Glytec, LLC and Aseko, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. Raymie McFarland and Monarch Medical Technologies, LLC, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 6:20-03321-HMH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION

November 12, 2020

OPINION & ORDER

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS RAYMIE MCFARLAND AND MONARCH MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiffs Glytec, LLC and Aseko, Inc. (collectively "Glytec"), against Defendants Raymie McFarland and Monarch Medical Technologies, LLC ("Monarch") (collectively "Defendants"), seeks a Preliminary Injunction to, among other things, enjoin and restrain Defendants from misappropriation of its confidential information and trade secrets, and to enforce the Employee Proprietary Information Inventions Assignment and Non-Competition Agreement ("Agreement"), entered into by McFarland and Glytec.

A party seeking a Preliminary Injunction . . . must establish that (1) it is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in its favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Winter[ v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)]. Each of these factors must be separately considered and "satisfied as articulated." The Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. FEC, 575 F.3d 342, 347 (4th Cir.2009), vacated on other grounds, Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 130 S. Ct. 876, 175 L.Ed.2d 753 (2010), aff'd, The Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. FEC, 607 F.3d 355 (4th Cir. 2010) (per curiam).

Cricket Store 17, LLC v. City of Columbia, 996 F. Supp. 2d 422, 427-28 (D.S.C. 2014).

The court held a hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction on November 12, 2020. At the hearing, the Defendants agreed to entry of a preliminary injunction in part. The court has considered the filings of the parties and the information ascertained at the hearing in this matter. The court finds as follows:

1. Glytec has shown a likelihood of success on the merits of the claims on which a preliminary injunction is sought.

2. For the reasons set forth in the Motion and the declaration and exhibits submitted therewith, Glytec has shown a tangible, ongoing threat of irreparable injury, absent entry of a Preliminary Injunction, for which there would be no adequate remedy at law, including Defendants' continued misappropriation of Glytec's trade secrets and the destruction of Glytec's goodwill and competitive position in the marketplace.

3. The balance of equities weighs in favor of entry of a Preliminary Injunction, and such entry is also in the public interest.

Therefore, it is ORDERED that Defendants, including their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys are enjoined as follows:

a. McFarland is preliminarily enjoined from working for Monarch or engaging in any other employment, consulting, contractor, or other business relationship with Monarch for a period of six months from September 21, 2020, the date the temporary restraining order was entered.

b. At the hearing on the preliminary injunction motion, the Defendants consented to being preliminarily enjoined from interfering with the business of Glytec by soliciting, attempting to solicit, inducing or otherwise causing any employee or consultant of Glytec to terminate any employment or consulting relationship with Glytec for any

...