Fill and Sign the Morris V Monotech of Mississippi Inc Civil Action No 1 Form

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI PLAINTIFF VS. NO. DEFENDANT DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendant moves, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, for a partial summary judgment in his/her favor and against (" ") dismissing the Complaint in its entirety. claims that breached a two-year covenant not to compete in effect following termination of his/her employment with . Despite the fact that the non-competition period ended , 20 , now seeks to enjoin from competing against and claims damages. Depositions of the parties and other witnesses establish that there are no disputed issues of fact. Rather, the parties simply disagree on whether the work performed during the noncompetition period was "in competition with" . I. UNDISPUTED FACTS The following is an itemization of the undisputed facts, which are material t o this Motion for Partial Summary Judgment: 1. bought 's stock in in 20 . As part of the stock purchase, the parties negotiated an agreement, which included the non-competition provision, which is now in dispute. The non-competition period was , 20 through , 20 . Covenant Not to Compete and Termination Agreement (the "Agreement" at 6(d).) 2. The Agreement allowed working for a printer as long as 's services for the printer were not "in competition with" . (Agreement at 6(d).) 3. provides "pre-press" services in the printing industry. does not provide final printing services. Deposition of (" Dep." at 9-10, 46-47; Deposition of " Dep." at 23.) 4. All printers must have pre-press work done in order to produce a final printed product. ( Dep. at 10, 22, 41; Dep. at 8.) 5. During the non-competition period, worked as a printing salesman for , a traditional printing company that does not provide pre-press services in competition with . ( Dep. at 46-47; Deposition of , " Dep." at 41; Dep. at 24-25.) 6. During the non-competition period, was also involved with (" ") a company which sold book covers to schools but which performed no printing (pre-press or otherwise). ( Dep. at 5, 21.) provided the printing for the book covers. ( Dep. at 6.) At request, , a competitor of , provided the pre-press work for the book covers and performed the actual printing of the book covers. ( Dep. at 8-10). It is undisputed that was not in competition with . ( Dep. at 23.) 7. currently works for , a pre-press company that competes directly with for pre-press services. Deposition of (" Dep." at 15-16.) did not begin working for until after the noncompetition period expired. ( Dep. at 15.) II. WHY IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT is entitled to summary judgment for the following reasons: 1. All parties agree that did not work for a company that competed with . Neither nor sold pre-press services in competition with . 2. All parties agree that sold printing rather than pre-press services while employed at . 3. All parties agree that did not sell pre-press services on behalf of . 4. All parties agree that was not prohibited from purchasing pre-press services from companies other than . likewise did not have an exclusive arrangement with , or to provide their pre-press services during the non competition period. 5. All parties agree that the non-competition provision speaks for itself. 6. admits that it suffered no damage at the hands of . III. ARGUMENT The Agreement only prevented from performing services that were "in competition with" -- selling pre-press services that provided. Since neither nor provided pre-press services that were in competition with , 's alleged involvement with pre-press work was in no way a violation of the Agreement. Simply because was involved in selling 's final printed product, which necessarily involved certain pre-press work, does not mean that violated the Agreement. Such an interpretation is beyond the scope and intent of the non-competition provision and is complet ely without merit. The non-competition period expired on , 20 . This action was not filed until , 20 . Injunctive relief is therefore beyond the scope and intent of the Agreement and is inappropriate under the circumstances. was also aware of 's employment with during the non-competition period and took no