Easy Access Distribution, Inc. v. Potter, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 12-053-17)
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION 2017-1105 EASY ACCESS DISTRIBUTION, INC. vs. JASON POTTER, DAVID LESSOR and NOVUS DISTRIBUTION, INC. MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION The defendant, Jason Potter, was an employee of the plaintiff, Easy Access Distribution, Inc. (Easy Access). Potter, together with defendant David Lessor, formed defendant Novus Distribution, Inc. (Novus). Novus is a competitor of Easy Access. The case is presently before the court on Easy Access’ motion for a preliminary injunction, among other things, enjoining the defendants from competing with Easy Access or soliciting any of Easy Access’ vendors or customers. The motion is DENIED, for the reasons that follow. FACTS The following facts are drawn from the parties’ affidavits and briefly summarized only to the extent necessary to provide context to the court’s decision. Easy Access is a distributor of audio/visual (AV) electronic equipment. It purchases this equipment from vendors and sells it to installers, who install it in businesses and residences. There are a number of businesses who distribute/wholesale this AV equipment. It is a competitive industry. Potter began work for Easy Access in 2009. Prior to that time, he worked for another electronics distribution company. He was involved in sales, marketing and purchasing. Easy Access asserts that Potter signed a Proprietary Rights Agreement, which contains a covenant not to compete, when he first began work, although it does not presently have a signed copy of that Agreement. Potter attests that he signed only an At-Will Employment Agreement and never signed a Proprietary Rights Agreement or any other contract that contained a restrictive covenant not to compete. In 2015, Potter and Lessor, who had run an electronics integration company that installed AV equipment, entered into discussions with the owners of Easy Access with a view to purchasing it. In connection with those negotiations, they signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement. They returned all confidential materials shared with them by Easy Access when the parties could not agree on terms and the negotiations ended in April, 2016. On April 21, 2016, Potter sent Easy Access a resignation letter. He declined an offer to stay on for an additional six months. His last day at Easy Access was May 20, 2016. On that day he sent a blast email to his contacts (dealers and vendors) using his Easy Access computer in which he: thanked the recipients for their business; announced that he was leaving Easy Access; stated that he had the highest regard for Easy Access and wished it continued success; and stated that he planned on remaining in the industry and hoped […]
Diamond Group, Inc. v. Selective Distribution International, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-139-13)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 12‑P‑864 Appeals Court Diamond Group, Inc. vs. Selective Distribution International, Inc. No. 12‑P‑864. Middlesex. January 8, 2013. ‑ November 25, 2013. Present: Graham, Grainger, & Sikora, JJ. Jurisdiction, Personal, Long‑arm statute, Forum non conveniens. Constitutional Law. Due Process of Law. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on October 19, 2009. A motion to dismiss was heard by Daniel M. Wrenn, J. Scott P. Fink for the plaintiff. Leonard M. Singer for the defendant. SIKORA, J. This appeal presents a question of the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts courts over a business corporation located exclusively in New York State. The plaintiff, Diamond Group, Inc. (Diamond), is a wholesale distributor of perfume products; its sole business location lies in Newton, Massachusetts. The defendant, Selective Distribution International, Inc. (Selective), is a distributor of fragrances, cosmetics, and beauty aids and accessories to retailers; its sole location lies in Jericho (Long Island), New York. Diamond brought suit against Selective in Superior Court for nonpayment for goods sold and delivered. It alleged that, over a period of twenty-one months, it had sold perfume products to Selective of a value of $ 995,692.35, but that Selective had failed to pay a balance due of $ 529,689.70. Diamond pleaded claims of breach of contract, quantum meruit entitlement, and unfair or deceptive conduct within the meaning of G. L. c. 93A, §§ 2 and 11. If proven, the wrongful nonpayment for more than half a million dollars worth of perfume would constitute conduct in fragrante delicto. However, this appeal does not require a decision of that ultimate question. It requires instead the determination whether the Massachusetts courts have jurisdiction to entertain the claim. In response to Diamond’s complaint, Selective moved under Mass.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2), 365 Mass. 754 (1974), to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, forum non conveniens. After supplementation of the allegations of the verified complaint by affidavits and appended exhibits by both parties, and after submission of extensive memoranda of law, a judge of the Superior Court concluded that Massachusetts courts lacked personal jurisdiction over Selective and entered judgment of dismissal. For the following reasons, we now reverse. Background. These undisputed facts emerge from the verified complaint, the parties’ affidavits, and their attached exhibits. Each of the corporate parties in this case is primarily a one-man […]
Categories: News Tags: 1113913, Diamond, Distribution, Group, Inc., International, Lawyers, Selective, Weekly
Police: Couple Charged with Drug Distribution at Boston Medical Center
The following information was supplied by the Boston Police Department. Charges listed do not indicate conviction. Boston Police Officers responded to a report of drug related issues in the adult emergency room at Boston Medical Cente South End Patch News