ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
MILLS JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT
the court is plaintiff's motion for a preliminary
injunction. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin defendant from
allegedly violating the parties' non-compete agreement.
For the following reasons, the motion is denied.
to the parties' affidavits, on August 7, 2015, the
parties entered into an agreement under which defendant
agreed to perform painting and construction work for
plaintiff. (PL's Am. Aff. ¶ 3; Def.'s Aff.
¶ 9.) Section 8 of the agreement provided that defendant
would not perform work for any of plaintiff's customers,
other than for the benefit of plaintiff, during the term of
the agreement and for ten years after the agreement.
(PL's Am. Aff. ¶ 4.)
worked for plaintiff for another one or two months after
signing the agreement. (PL's Third Aff. ¶ 8;
Def.'s Aff. ¶ 11.) After defendant stopped working
for plaintiff, defendant worked on his own for Port
Properties, one of plaintiff's customers. (PL's Am.
Aff. ¶ 21; Def.'s Aff. ¶ 13.) Plaintiff alleges
that, as a result of defendant's employment with Port
Properties, plaintiff has lost thousands of dollars per month
and his goodwill has been damaged. (PL's Am. Aff.
¶¶ 9-10, 19.)
August 16, 2016, plaintiff filed a complaint seeking
injunctive relief. On September 13, 2016, the court denied
plaintiffs request for injunctive relief on the ground that
he had not pleaded a cause of action. Plaintiff then filed an
amended complaint on September 19, 2016. In the amended
complaint, plaintiff alleged: count I, breach of contract
(damages); count II, breach of contract (specific
performance); and count III, breach of contract (injunctive
filed an amended motion for a preliminary injunction on
September 19, 2016. Defendant filed his opposition to the
motion on October 12, 2016. Plaintiff filed a reply on
October 20, 2016.
Standard of Review
seeking a preliminary injunction must show that: (1) it will
suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted;
(2) the injury outweighs any harm that granting the
injunction would inflict on the other party; (3) it has a
likelihood of success on the merits; and (4) the public
interest will not be adversely affected by granting the
injunction. Ingraham v. Univ. of Me., 441 A.2d 691,
693 (Me. 1982). "Failure to demonstrate that any one of
these criteria are met requires that injunctive relief be
denied." Bangor Historic Track, Inc. v. Dep't of
Agric, Food & Rural Res., 2003 ME 140. ¶ 10,
837 A.2d 129.
Motion for Preliminary Injunction
has not shown he will suffer irreparable harm. He states in
conclusionary terms only that he has lost good will.
(PL's Am. Aff. ¶¶ 10, 19.) Speculative claims
of loss of good will do not constitute irreparable injury.
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v.
Bishop, 839 F.Supp. 68, 75 (D. Me. 1993). The fact that
the parties' agreement provides that defendant
acknowledged that plaintiff would be irreparably harmed if
the agreement were violated is not dispositive. (PL's Am.
Aff. ¶ 17); see Saga Commc'ns of New England,
Inc. v. Crocker, 1995 Me. Super. LEXIS 403, at *3-7
(Nov. 9, 1995); Butterfield v. Dep't of Human
Servs.. 1991 Me. Super. LEXIS 23, at *4 (Jan. 17, 1991)
(evidence in the record to support agreement that plaintiff
class would suffer irreparable harm). Plaintiff must show
that he will in fact suffer an irreparable harm, which he has
failed to do. See In graham, 441 A.2d at 693
(plaintiff bears burden of proving criteria for injunctive