Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

ADP, LLC v. Lynch

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

July 17, 2017

ADP, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
JORDAN LYNCH, Defendant. ADP, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN HALPIN, Defendant.

          OPINION

          WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.

         Plaintiff ADP, LLC brings this action against its former employees Jordan Lynch and John Halpin (collectively “Defendants”), alleging violations of restrictive covenants contained in their employment agreements. This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 87) of the Court's Order and Opinion issued on April 24, 2017 (ECF Nos. 84, 85), denying Defendant's motion to vacate the preliminary injunction (ECF No. 71). There was no oral argument. Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b). For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion is DENIED.

         I. BACKGROUND

         The Court assumes the parties' familiarity with the facts and will summarize below only those facts relevant to the instant motion. On April 24, 2017, this Court denied Defendants' motion to vacate the preliminary injunction (the “Injunction”), which the Court issued on June 30, 2016 (ECF No. 31), and which the Third Circuit affirmed on February 7, 2017 (ECF No. 69-1). The Injunction enjoined Defendants from using or disclosing any of Plaintiff's proprietary information, from soliciting Plaintiff's current clients, vendors, employees or partners, and from soliciting Plaintiff's prospective clients that Defendants gained knowledge of during the course of their employment. Defendants were not enjoined from working at Plaintiff's competitor.

         In addressing Defendants' motion to vacate, the Court found that “Defendants essentially [made] the same argument against the enforceability of the tolling provisions as they did against the restrictive covenants as a whole in their previous motion to dismiss.” See ECF No. 84 at 3. The Court noted that it and the Third Circuit expressly rejected the argument that Plaintiff failed to notify Defendants of changes to their employment agreements and held that the restrictive covenants were enforceable. Id. at 4. The Court again rejected that argument in holding that the tolling provisions, also found in the restrictive covenants, were enforceable. Id.

         Defendants now move for reconsideration, arguing that the Court overlooked two conditions precedent to the tolling provisions. See Defs.' Br. in Supp. of Mot. for Reconsideration (“Defs.' Mot.”) 3-6, ECF No. 87-1. Defendants further argue that manifest injustice will result if the Court's ruling stands because Defendants will be unable to effectively engage in their current employment for fear that they will unknowingly and unwittingly violate the Injunction. See id. at 6-8. Plaintiff opposes, arguing that Defendants failed to meet their high burden for reconsideration and that the Court correctly interpreted the tolling provisions. See Pl.'s Br. in Opp'n to Defs.' Mot. (“Pl.'s Opp'n”) 2- 6, ECF No. 93. Defendants timely filed a reply. Defs.' Reply Br. to Pl.'s Br. in Opp'n (“Defs.' Reply”), ECF No. 94.

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) provides that “a motion for reconsideration shall be served and filed within 14 days after the entry of the order or judgment on the original motion by the Judge or Magistrate Judge.” “A motion for reconsideration is properly treated as a motion under Rule 59(e) . . . to alter or amend the judgment.” Koshatka v. Phila. Newspapers, Inc., 762 F.2d 329, 333 (3d Cir. 1985). “[A] judgment may be altered or amended if the party seeking reconsideration shows at least one of the following grounds: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court granted the motion . . .; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.” Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999).

         “The word ‘overlooked' is the operative term in [Rule 7.1(i)].” Lentz v. Mason, 32 F.Supp.2d 733, 751 (D.N.J. 1999) (citation omitted). “Only dispositive factual matters and controlling decisions of law which were presented to the court but not considered on the original motion may be the subject of a motion for reconsideration.” Id. (quotation and citation omitted). “[S]uch motions are not an opportunity to argue what could have been, but was not, argued in the original set of moving and responsive papers.” Id. (quotation and citation omitted).

         Under the manifest injustice rationale, “reconsideration is proper if the contested holding . . . would create manifest injustice if not addressed.” See Valcom, Inc. v. Vellardita, No. 2:13-cv-3025, 2014 WL 2965708, at *2 (D.N.J. July 1, 2014) (quotations and citation omitted). “Just what constitutes manifest injustice is not well defined by the Third Circuit, but courts in this district have noted that other circuits look to the Black's law definition: an error in the trial court that is direct, obvious, and observable.” Id. (quotations and citations omitted). “[A] district court has considerable discretion to decide whether reconsideration is necessary to prevent manifest injustice.” Id. (quotation and citation omitted).

         III. DISCUSSION

         Defendants move under the clear error of law and manifest injustice rationales. First, Defendants argue that the Court made a clear error of law by overlooking two conditions precedent in the tolling provisions that must be satisfied before tolling is available. See Defs.' Mot. at 3. As a threshold matter, Defendants never expressly raised the existence of conditions precedent in their original moving or reply papers that they do now. Nevertheless, Defendants did argue in their original reply papers that the tolling provisions require a determination “by a court of competent jurisdiction that Defendants are in violation of the restrictive covenants.” See ECF No. 81 at 21. They also argued that Plaintiff's evidence did not support a finding that they violated the Injunction. Id. The Court, therefore, will briefly address their arguments.

         The contractual language in question reads as follows:

The restricted time periods in paragraphs three (3) through six (6) shall be tolled during any time period that I am in violation of such covenants, as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, so that ADP may realize the full benefit of the bargain. This tolling shall include any time period during which litigation is pending, but during which I have continued to violate such protective covenant and ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.