AUTOMILE MOTORS LLC TRIAL

The restriction was designed to prevent McGovern from 'raiding' the company by targeting and soliciting key employees to work for him. The provision at issue prohibited defendant Matthew McGovern from soliciting or hiring employees from his former company for a defined period of time. At issue in the instant case is an 'anti-raiding' restrictive covenant entered into between an automotive dealership group and a former executive and minority owner. The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court.īenjamin M. ĬIVIL ACTION commenced in the Superior Court Department on November 21, 2017.

AUTOMILE MOTORS LLC TRIAL

In the context of a civil action involving a provision in an agreement entered into by an automotive dealership group (dealership group) and the defendant, who was a former executive and minority owner of the dealership group, prohibiting the defendant for a specified period of time from hiring or soliciting for hire the dealership group's employees or encouraging such employees to leave the dealership group, this court concluded that the provision arose in a context more akin to the sale of a business than to an employment relationship, and that the provision was an enforceable restrictive covenant necessary to protect a legitimate business interest, in that, given the defendant's prior position within the dealership group, his present position as a competitor well poised to steal employees from the dealership group, and the additional consideration that he received for agreeing to the provision, the dealership group had a legitimate 'anti-raiding' business interest however, this court further concluded that the trial judge abused his discretion by extending the provision in the agreement for an additional year without first finding that monetary damages could not compensate the dealership group adequately for its lost employees or that the defendant's finances were so precarious that equitable relief should be accelerated. Contract, Agreement not to compete, Performance and breach.

(3) SJC-12740 14 Appellant McGovern Redacted Reply BriefĬorporation, Close corporation.

(2) SJC-12740 14 AMR Auto Redacted Brief.(1) SJC-12740 02 Appellant McGovern Redacted Brief.797 OctoJanuCourt Below: Superior Court, Suffolk County Present: Gants, C.J., Lenk, Gaziano, Lowy, Budd, Cypher, & Kafker, JJ. If you choose to do business with this business, please let the business know that you contacted BBB for a BBB Business Profile.Īs a matter of policy, BBB does not endorse any product, service or business.AUTOMILE HOLDINGS, LLC vs. BBB Business Profiles are subject to change at any time. When considering complaint information, please take into account the company's size and volume of transactions, and understand that the nature of complaints and a firm's responses to them are often more important than the number of complaints.īBB Business Profiles generally cover a three-year reporting period. However, BBB does not verify the accuracy of information provided by third parties, and does not guarantee the accuracy of any information in Business Profiles. BBB asks third parties who publish complaints, reviews and/or responses on this website to affirm that the information provided is accurate. BBB Business Profiles may not be reproduced for sales or promotional purposes.īBB Business Profiles are provided solely to assist you in exercising your own best judgment.

Automile motors llc