HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-6484 Civil (2)
SOVEREIGN BENEFITS : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CONSULTING, INC, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff :
:
v. :
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
WILLIAM HILLER, JR., DANIEL :
SOMMA, and CAPITAL :
INSURANCE ADVISORS, LLC, :
Defendants : NO. 08 – 6484 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925
OLER, J., May 20, 2009.
In this civil action arising out of an alleged breach of a restrictive covenant
incident to employment, a former employer has sued two former employees and their
1
present company for “equitable, injunctive and monetary relief.” Defendants, William
2
Hiller, Jr., Daniel Somma, and Capital Insurance Advisors, LLC, appeal to the
Pennsylvania Superior Court from an order which, following a December 5, 2008
3
hearing, granted Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. The bases for the
appeal, as expressed in Defendants’ statement of matters complained of on appeal, are as
follows:
(a)Did the trial court err in granting an injunction against the Appellants
when the undisputed testimony before the Court revealed that the
Appellants were already employees of the Appellee when they were
forced to execute the non-solicitation agreements and were provided
with no additional consideration for the same?
(b)Assuming arguendo that the non-solicitation agreements in question
are enforceable, did the trial court err in granting an injunction in light
of the lack of evidence presented that the non-solicitation agreements
were breached; that Appellee has no protectable interest at issue; and
no solicitation occurred?
1
Plaintiff’s complaint for Equitable, Injunctive and Monetary Relief, filed October 31, 2008 (hereinafter
Plaintiff’s Complaint).
2
Defendants’ Notice of Appeal, filed March 5, 2009.
3
Order of Court, February 4, 2009.
1
(c)Did the trial court err in granting an injunction against Appellant
Hiller when no evidence was presented by Appellee that Hiller
4
violated any non-solicitation agreement?
The rationale for the court’s order from which the Defendants have appealed was
5
provided in an opinion of even date therewith accompanying the order. This opinion, in
the court’s view, addresses the substantive issues contained in Defendants’ concise
statement of matters complained of on appeal.
Accordingly, the Prothonotary is directed to transmit the record to the Superior
Court for purposes of its consideration of Defendants’ appeal.
BY THE COURT,
________________
J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J.
Mark D. Bradshaw, Esq.
STEVENS & LEE
th
16 Floor
17 North Second Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Attorney for Plaintiff
Michael P. Robic, II, Esq.
METZ LEWIS LLC
11 Stanwix Street
th
18 Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Attorney for Defendants
4
Defendants’ Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b),
filed April 14, 2009.
5
See Opinion and Order of Court, February 4, 2009.
2