Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
No. 15-1330
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
Joseph R. Goodwin,
District Judge. (2:15-cv-00361)
Submitted:
HARRIS,
Decided:
Circuit
Judges,
and
DAVIS,
Senior
PER CURIAM:
JAK
Productions,
(collectively,
JAK)
denying
request
their
Inc.,
appeal
for
and
from
Group
the
Consultants,
district
preliminary
Inc.,
courts
injunction
order
in
their
civil action against Robert Bayer under West Virginia law and
the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. 1030(g) (2012).
The district court denied JAKs request for the issuance of a
preliminary injunction with respect to a restrictive covenant at
section 8.a. of an employment contract between Bayer and JAK. *
We affirm.
[W]here a preliminary injunction is under an interlocutory
examination, determining whether the district court abused its
discretion
is
the
extent
of
our
appellate
inquiry.
As
long
as
injunction
the
district
standard,
court
made
no
applied
clearly
correct
erroneous
the
district
courts
denial
Factual findings
of
preliminary
plaintiff
seeking
preliminary
injunctive
relief
must
favor,
interest.
and
[4]
that
an
injunction
is
in
the
public
7, 20 (2008).
Truth
About
Obama,
Inc.
v.
FEC,
575
F.3d
342,
345-46
(4th Cir. 2009), vacated on other grounds, 559 U.S. 1089 (2010).
With
respect
preliminary
to
the
injunction
first
must
prong,
the
demonstrate
by
party
a
seeking
clear
the
showing
employment
Virginia
contract
law
and
was
thus
facially
not
unreasonable
enforceable,
see
under
West
Huntington
Eye
Assocs., Inc. v. LoCascio, 553 S.E.2d 773, 780 (W. Va. 2001);
Reddy v. Cmty. Health Found. of Man, 298 S.E.2d 906, 910-11,
915, 918-19 (W. Va. 1982), and JAKs arguments on appeal do not
establish reversible error in this determination.
Contrary to
contention
that
this
ruling
We reject as unexplained
was
error
because
Bayers
preliminary
injunction
interpretation it advances.
relevant
law
JAKs
request
support
the
contract
contention
that
section
8.a.
should
be
therefore
We dispense
with
contentions
are
affirm
oral
the
argument
adequately
district
because
presented
in
courts
judgment.
the
facts
and
the
materials
legal
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED