Jerome-Duncan, Inc. v. Auto-By-Tel, L.L.C.

2 Citing cases

  1. Automation & Modular Components, Inc. v. Blackford

    23-cv-12420 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 3, 2023)

    Jerome-Duncan, Inc. v. Auto-By-Tel, L.L.C. 966 F.Supp. 540, 541 (E.D. Mich. 1997) (alterations and quotations omitted). Plaintiff has failed to establish that it will suffer irreparable harm absent the injunction as the damages it complains of are monetary.

  2. Fulton v. Honkamp Krueger Fin. Servs.

    Case No. 20-CV-1063 (PJS/DTS) (D. Minn. Dec. 1, 2020)   Cited 5 times
    Reviewing an identical non-compete provision in an employment contract between HKFS and a different former employee and determining that the contract distinguished between the term of employment and the term of the employment agreement such that the termination of the agreement abrogated the non-compete provision

    See, e.g., Innoviant Pharmacy, Inc. v. Morganstern, 390 F. Supp. 2d 179, 190 (N.D.N.Y. 2005) (finding that the threatened loss of referral sources constitutes irreparable harm, as referral sources are "one step removed" from "the ultimate source of Innoviant's revenue"); but see Guttenberg v. Emery, 26 F. Supp. 3d 88, 102 (D.D.C. 2014) (finding no irreparable harm despite plaintiffs' argument that "because their business is based on referrals, lost referrals threaten[] their practice"); Jerome-Duncan, Inc. v. Auto-By-Tel, L.L.C., 966 F. Supp. 540, 543 (E.D. Mich. 1997) ("Should a determination of damages be required at a latter date, a court could look to [plaintiff's] past performance or . . . the actual dealers which received the referrals in place of [plaintiff]. There is nothing unique about this case, with regard to damages, which would take it out of the ordinary breach of contract remedies context.").