Raymond James & Associates, Inc. V. Leonard & Company and Ronald Boerjan

In: Other Topics

Submitted By slane
Words 319
Pages 2
1. Case Name, Citation, and Court
Raymond James & Associates, Inc. v. Leonard & Company, and Ronald Boerjan
411 F. Supp. 2d. 689 (2006)
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division

2. Summary of the Key Facts A. Ronald Boerjan resigned from Raymond James & Associates, Inc. (RJA) on December 23, 2005. B. Boerjan began working with RJA competitor, Leonard & Company. C. Boerjan created his own “posting pages” (book of business) so that he could prepare account transfer forms. The “posting pages” are industry standard and contain the cient’s personal information. D. Boerjan avers that RJA’s CEO told him and others at an October, 2005 meeting that “you own your book” and that they were free to take their book of business with them when they left RJA. E. RJA accused Boerjan of taking trade secrets of their company to the competitor company, to solicit clients.

3. The Issue
Can Raymond James & Associates, Inc. succeed in filing a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction towards Ronald Boerjan for taking “trade secrets” (client lists and information) to the competitor company, Leonard & Company?

4. Holding
No.

5. Summary of the Court’s Reasoning A. The Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division found that while working for RJA, Boerjan did not sign any non-solicitation or non-compete agreement. He had every right to take the information he had recorded in his “book of business” of clients he had helped to his new employer, Leonard & Company. Boerjan’s personal book is his property. B. Although it is clear that Boerjan was making preparations to compete, he did not take any action with the previous clients until he had resigned from RJA. He resigned on December 23, 2005 and a client received the solicitation packet…...

Similar Documents

Poe V. Leonard

...Case: Poe v. Leonard (2002) Rule of Law: The conditions for determining whether or not a government officials' denial of qualified immunity based on interlocutory appeal is reviewable if it otherwise satisfies the test of the collateral order doctrine. Facts: A woman (Poe, plaintiff, appellee) was surreptitiously videotaped unclothed while under the pretense that she would be assisting in the creation of a training video for the trainees' program at the Connecticut State Troopers Police Academy by Trooper Pearl, videographer, under the direct command of Captain Leonard(3rd party defendant, appellant). While Pearl's actions were grossly negligent to the point of a violating the plaintiff's Constitutional rights, it is Leonard's actions, or lack thereof, in properly supervising Trooper Pearl that are under question in this case. Issue: Did Leonard's inaction, be it by failing to review the personnel files of those he would be assuming command of, specifically Pearl, or by constructive knowledge of Pearl's history of unbecoming behavior, violate the doctrine in place for qualified immunity, thereby placing Leonard in a liable state, and lead directly to Pearl's ability to have "carte blanche" control over the creation of the training video, which then lead to the Constitutional tort committed upon Poe, on or about the fall of 1992? Poe argues that Leonard acted recklessly by failing to review personnel files, therefore forfeiting his right to qualified immunity. Leonard......

Words: 586 - Pages: 3

Zheng V. Liberty Apparel Company

...ZHENG v. LIBERTY APPAREL COMPANY INC 88 91 998 103 No. 02-7826. Argued:  Jan. 16, 2003. -- December 30, 2003 Before:  WINTER, LEVAL, and CABRANES, Circuit Judges. James Reif (Margaret A. Malloy, of counsel), Gladstein, Reif & Meginniss, LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.Michael H. Klein, Kestenbaum, Dannenberg & Klein, LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.Jennifer S. Brand, Assistant Attorney General (M. Patricia Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel J. Chepaitis, Assistant Solicitor General, of counsel, Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York, on the brief), Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York, New York, NY, for amicus curiae Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York.Catherine K. Ruckelshaus (Laurence E. Norton, II, Amy Sugimori, of counsel), National Employment Law Project, Inc., New York, NY, for amici curiae Asian-American Legal Defense and Education Fund and National Employment Lawyers' Association. This case asks us to decide whether garment manufacturers who hired contractors to stitch and finish pieces of clothing were “joint employers” within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and New York law.   Plaintiffs, garment workers in New York City who were directly employed by the contractors, claim that the manufacturers were their joint employers because they worked predominantly on the manufacturers' garments, they performed a......

Words: 10036 - Pages: 41

Eeoc V. Lowe's Companies Inc.

...Lowe's Companies, Inc. Sued for Race Discrimination http://www.eeoc.gov/press/3-24-04.html The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 24, 2004 CONTACT: Katharine W. Kores, Regional Attorney (901) 544-1051 Faye Williams, Supervisory Trial Attorney (901) 544-0088 Deidre Smith Senior Trial Attorney (901) 544-0140 TTY: (901) 544-0112 LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC. SUED FOR RACE DISCRIMINATION EEOC Litigation Says Home Improvement Giant Rejected Qualified Black Job Applicants MEMPHIS, Tenn.-- The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced the filing of a race discrimination lawsuit under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act against Lowe's Companies, Inc., doing business as Lowe's Home Center's Inc. The suit charges the world's second largest home improvement retailer with failing to hire a class of qualified African American applicants due to their race at its Reload Distribution Center in Vonore, Tenn. The EEOC's lawsuit, Civil Action No. 3-04-CV-133, in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Knoxville Division, charges that Curtis Carter, Tiffany Carter, and a class of African Americans, all qualified applicants, were denied positions in Lowe's Reload Distribution Center between 2002 and 2003 because of their race. The EEOC filed suit after exhausting its conciliation efforts to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement. The lawsuit asks the court to order the company to provide back pay,......

Words: 594 - Pages: 3

Poe V. Leonard

...the light most favorable to Poe, the non-moving party. See, e.g., Goldberg v. Cablevision Sys. Corp., 261 F.3d 318, 324 (2d Cir.2001). I. Factual Background A. The Filming of the Trooper Candidate Testing Videos At some time during the fall of 1992, several administrative officials of the Connecticut State Police ("CSP") and the Connecticut Department of Administrative Services began to revise the testing procedures for trooper candidates at the CSP Training Academy ("police academy"). Captain Leonard, who had just assumed command of the CSP Bureau of Selections and Training,[1] supervised this ongoing project along with Dr. Martin Anderson ("Dr. Anderson"), the Chief Personnel Psychologist for the State of Connecticut. A particular focus of this project was the development 127*127 of several testing videos, designed to screen out those trooper candidates with poor observational and communicative skills. In essence, trooper candidates would be required to view a videotaped scene of a crime or other representative "real life" scenario that CSP officers typically confront and then to explain what they had observed. As originally planned, the video scenes would include a variety of circumstances: a depiction of a person driving while intoxicated, a man with a weapon who stops and robs a victim, a simple trespass, a "static" crime scene, and a scene with a distraught victim. During this project, Leonard met with Dr. Anderson and with Pearl, who was the trooper responsible for......

Words: 11115 - Pages: 45

Quality Associates, Inc.

...Chapter 9 Hypothesis Testing Case Problem 1: Quality Associates, Inc. 1. The hypothesis testing results are shown below: Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample Size 30 30 30 30 Mean 11.959 12.029 11.889 12.081 Standard Deviation 0.220 0.220 0.207 0.206 Level of Significance (alpha) 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 Critical Value (lower tail) -2.576 -2.576 -2.576 -2.576 Critical Value (upper tail) 2.576 2.576 2.576 2.576 Hypothesized value 12 12 12 12 Standard Error 0.040 0.040 0.038 0.038 Test Statistic -1.027 0.713 -2.935 2.161 p-value 0.304 0.476 0.003 0.031 Only sample 3 leads to the rejection of the hypothesis H0: µ = 12. Thus, corrective action is warranted for sample 3. The other samples indicate H0 cannot be rejected and thus from all we can tell, the process is operating satisfactorily. Sample 3 with = 11.89 shows the process is operating below the desired mean. Sample 4 with = 12.08 is on the high side, but the p-value of .03 is not sufficient to reject H0. 2. The sample standard deviations for all four samples are in the .20 to .22 range. It appears that the process population standard deviation assumption of .21 is good. 3. With α = .01, z.005 = 2.576. Using the standard error of the mean =0.0383, the upper and lower control limits are computed as follows: Upper Control Limit = 12 + 2.576 (0.0383) = 12.0987 Lower Control Limit = 12 - 2.576 (0.0383) = 11.9013 As long as a sample mean is between......

Words: 393 - Pages: 2

Harley-Davidson, Inc. V Grottanelli

...Running head: Harley-Davidson, Inc. v Grottanelli Harley-Davidson, Inc. v Grottanelli Park University HARLEY-DAVIDSON, INC. v. GROTTANELLI 91 F.Supp.2d 544 (2000) HARLEY-DAVIDSON, INC., Plaintiff, v. Ronald GROTTANELLI, d/b/a The Hog Farm, Defendant. No. 93-CV-144M. United States District Court, W.D. New York. March 24, 2000. Michael, Best & Friedrich, Dyann L. Kostello, Milwaukee, WI, for plaintiff. Phillips, Lytle, Hitchcock, Blaine & Huber, Peter K. Sommer, Buffalo, NY, for defendant. Harley-Davidson, Inc. v Grottanelli Harley-Davidson, Inc. v Grottanelli was heard before the court in October 21 through 24, 1996. A decision and order was entered March 20, 1997 in which it was found that the defendant was entitled to use the term “Hog Farm” in regards to the conduct of its business. Harley-Davidson, Inc. was entitled to a permanent injunction with respect to its “Bar and Shield” and “Hog” trademarks. On April 9, 1997, the defendant moved to amend the courts findings and to amend the order from March 20, 1997. In addition, the defendant moved to amend the pleadings to conform with the evidence and for entry of judgment in his favor. In a judgment filed October 1, 1997, the court denied the motions and enjoined his use of the plaintiff’s “Bar and Shield” and “Hog” trademarks. The parties then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit were the court upheld the judgment as to the “Bar and Shield” trademarks, but reversed...

Words: 713 - Pages: 3

Pliva, Inc. V. Mensing

...PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing Doctors prescribed both Gladys Mensing and Julie Demahy the drug Reglan. They each had their prescriptions filled with the generic equivalent of the name brand drug. After long-term use of this generic drug, Mensing and Demahy developed severe neurologic disorders. The women separately sued Pliva and Actavis, the generic drug manufacturers, making state law failure-to-warn claims, alleging that the drug’s warning label failed to adequately warn them of the risks. Pliva and Actavis argue that the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, along with Food and Drug Administration regulations that govern the entire drug approval and labeling process, preempt Mensing and Demahy’s state law claims because it was impossible for Pliva and Actavis to comply with both federal and state law. The companies argue that they could not provide additional warnings beyond what the brand manufacturer provided on its label. In deciding this case, the Supreme Court will ultimately have to weigh the costs born by generic drug manufacturers and the public against the benefits of incentivizing manufacturers to create safer drugs with more complete warnings. After taking metaclopramide for several years, both respondents developed tardive dyskinesia and sued the manufacturers of the medication that they took. The suits were based on failure-to-warn theories under state law. The defendant manufacturers in both cases argued that federal statutes and FDA......

Words: 845 - Pages: 4

Case Problem Quality Associates, Inc.

...Quality Associates, Inc., a consulting firm, advises its clients about sampling and statistical procedures that can be used to control their manufacturing processes. In one particular application, a client gave Quality Associates a sample of 800 observations taken during a time in which that client’s process was operating satisfactorily. The sample standard deviation for these data was .21; hence, with so much data, the population standard deviation was assumed to be .21. Quality Associates then suggested that random samples of size 30 be taken periodically to monitor the process on an ongoing basis. By analyzing the new samples, the client could quickly learn whether the process was operating satisfactorily. When the process was not operating satisfactorily, corrective action could be taken to eliminate the problem. The design specification indicated the mean for the process should be 12. The hypothesis test suggested by Quality Associates follows. H0: μ = 12 Ha: μ ≠ 12 Corrective action will be taken any time H0 is rejected. The following samples were collected at hourly intervals during the first day of operation of the new statistical process control procedure. These data are available in the data set Quality. Managerial Report 1. Conduct a hypothesis test for each sample at the .01 level of significance and determine what action, if any, should be taken. Provide the test statistic and p-value for each test. 2. Compute the standard deviation for each of the......

Words: 683 - Pages: 3

Leonard V. Pepsico.

...Case Review/IRAC Case Citation John D.R. Leonard, Plaintiff v. Pepsico, Inc., Defendant 88 F.Supp.2d 116 (1999) Key Facts Pepsico conducted a test of a new promotion in the Pacific Northwest from October 1995 to March 1996 where plaintiff saw the advertisement and contended that it offered a Harrier Jet. Through acquaintances, plaintiff raised $700,000, and wrote a check to Pepsi along with 15 pepsi points and a filled out order form for 7,000,000 additional Pepsi points. Defendant’s fulfillment house rejected plaintiff’s submission. Plaintiff’s counsel responded on May 14th, 1996 forewarning that they will file an appropriate action if they do not fulfill their offer of a Harrier Jet. Procedural History This case went straight to the United States District Court. Legal Issue Whether the television commercial constituted an offer of a Harrier Jet. Legal Reasoning Although the plaintiff filled out the Order Form with a check, etc.; -Under these principles, plaintiff’s letter of March 27, 1996, with the Order Form and the appropriate number of Pepsi Points, constituted the offer. There would be no enforceable contract until defendant accepted the Order Form and cashed the check. -The commercial cannot be regarded in itself as sufficiently definite, because it specifically reserved the details of the offer to a separate writing, the Catalog. -As the Mesaro’s court explained, the absence of any words of limitation such as “first come, first......

Words: 861 - Pages: 4

Raymond James V. Leonard & Company 411 F. Supp. 2d 689 (2006) United States Court of Appeals

...Cora-Leigh O’Neal BUS 3350 8:00 A.M. Case Brief 1: Raymond James 1. Case Name, Citation, and Court Raymond James v. Leonard & Company 411 F. Supp. 2d 689 (2006) United States Court of Appeals 2. Summary of Key Facts A. A former employee of Raymond James & Associates, Ronald Boerjan, resigned from RJA on December 23, 2005, and began to work for RJA’s competitor, Leonard & Company. Boerjan began to solicit his former clients of RJA, to try to transfer to LC. B. Noting that Boerjan has on record signed acknowledgements that he was aware and agreed to the policies and procedures prior to his hire at RJA, which included policies on what does and does not make up a “trade secret”, RJA seeks a preliminary injunction which prohibits Boerjan and LC from contacting, soliciting, or using any of RJA’s trade secrets, including by not limited to, customer lists and account numbers. 3. The Issue Do customer lists meet the definition of trade secret, and if so, is Boerjan breeching that with his solicitation of his former clients? 4. Holding No 5. Summary of Court’s Reasoning A. The likelihood of Boerjan’s success in transferring former client’s accounts to his new firm isn’t strong or substancial enough to be sufficicent enough to grant an injunction B. Customer lists developed by Boerjan are not protectable trade secrets. C. There is nothing wrong with an employee establishing and communicating with customers for......

Words: 253 - Pages: 2

Zippittelli V. J.C. Penney Company, Inc.

...Zippittelli v. J.C. Penney Company, Inc. The plaintiff, who is 63 years old, brought this employment discrimination suit against her employer, J.C. Penney, after the company failed to promote her to the position of shift operations manager at the company's Moosic, Pennsylvania Customer Service Center. She alleged violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She brought these claims against both the company and the PHRA claims against her supervisor at the Moosic center, James Johnson. She was the first associate hired at the new Customer Service Center in Moosic. James Johnson became personnel manager at the facility in March 1990. Johnson was promoted to manager of the call center in March 1999. After Johnson came to the facility, plaintiff frequently sought promotion to a management position. In 1990, she sought promotion to seasonal shift leader, also known as general lead clerk and was denied both positions. Plaintiff contends that after she complained in 1993 or 1994 to a supervisor about her lack of opportunity for promotion, Johnson told two of her co-workers that plaintiff would "never be promoted while he was there.” This template is formatted according to APA Style guidelines, with one inch top, bottom, left, and right margins; Times New Roman font in 12 point; double-spaced; aligned flush left; and paragraphs indented 5-7 spaces. The page number appears one inch from the right edge on the first line of...

Words: 1097 - Pages: 5

Apple Inc

...and society Alex Bogusky: designer, advertising executive, marketer, author David Boies: attorney who represented U.S. Justice Department in U.S. v. Microsoft and Al Gore in Bush v. Gore Mark Borovitz: rabbi, ex-convict who runs a residential treatment center forex-convicts and drug addicts Anthony Bozza: music journalist and author, writer for Rolling Stone William Bratton: police commissioner of New York City Eli Broad: philanthropist, entrepreneur, art collector John Brockman: literary agent, author, founder of the Edge Foundation Bradford Brown: translator of The Book of Five Rings, a book writ- ten by a Japanese samurai on the art of confrontation and victory Roy Brown: musician, composer Tim Brown: CEO and president of design firm IDEO Willie Brown: former mayor of San Francisco who served fifteen years as Speaker of the California State Assembly Tiffany Bryan: contestant on reality TV show Fear Factor Jane Buckingham: expert on forecasting trends Ted Buffington: expert on performance under pressure and on decision making in critical situations 4 Vincent Bugliosi: deputy Los Angeles district attorney who prosecuted Charles Manson, cowrote Helter Skelter Ed Bunker: career criminal and author of crime fiction Tory Burch: fashion designer James Burke: CEO of Johnson & Johnson during the 1982 Tylenol crisis Cara-Beth Burnside: pioneer of women’s skateboarding and snowboarding Chandler......

Words: 6829 - Pages: 28

Poe V. Leonard

...Poe V. Leonard Case: Poe v. Leonard (2002) Rule of Law: The conditions for determining whether or not a government officials' denial of qualified immunity based on interlocutory appeal is reviewable if it otherwise satisfies the test of the collateral order doctrine. Facts: A woman (Poe, plaintiff, appellee) was surreptitiously videotaped unclothed while under the pretense that she would be assisting in the creation of a training video for the trainees' program at the Connecticut State Troopers Police Academy by Trooper Pearl, videographer, under the direct command of Captain Leonard(3rd party defendant, appellant). While Pearl's actions were grossly negligent to the point of a violating the plaintiff's Constitutional rights, it is Leonard's actions, or lack thereof, in properly supervising Trooper Pearl that are under question in this case. Issue: Did Leonard's inaction, be it by failing to review the personnel files of those he would be assuming command of, specifically Pearl, or by constructive knowledge of Pearl's history of unbecoming behavior, violate the doctrine in place for qualified immunity, thereby placing Leonard in a liable state, and lead directly to Pearl's ability to have "carte blanche" control over the creation of the training video, which then lead to the Constitutional tort committed upon Poe, on or about the fall of 1992? Poe argues that Leonard acted recklessly by failing to review personnel files, therefore forfeiting his right to qualified......

Words: 304 - Pages: 2

Companies

...Greg Nanigian & Associates  * Jenny L, Kforce  * Phillip R, USTeleCenters  * Cindy B, Sunday River  * John C, Bridge Technical Talent  * Philip G, Gillins Consulting Group  * Christine S, Chaloner  * Tim M, Apogee ITS  * Greg Spurr S, Merrill Lynch  * Dominic A, DPA Communications  * Alex A, Baker Engineering & Controls, Inc.  * Cathie B, NSK Inc  * Sean B, Baystate Financial Services  * Jonathan C, Raymond James & Associates  * walker m, Martin Lawrence Gallery  * Ben D, Morgan Stanley  * Todd M, Morgan Stanley  * Peter W, Boston Rowing Center  * Mark G, Aflac  * Nadia S, RDM  * Abel J, Dynamic REI Properties  * Lisiane J, Dynamic REI Properties  * Alexandra P, JOHNLEONARD  * Katrina A, JOHNLEONARD  * Cathi C, Neighoborhood Health Plan  * Tong Mei L, Financial services marketing company  * Chuck G, IndigoVision  * Charles F, New York Life  * Jasmine J, Weichert Realtors, Metropolitan Boston Real Estate  * Andrew R, Haworth  * Justin T, Equinox  * Jack M, Edward Jones  * Peggy G, CrowdComfort  * Douglas B, BHE Cloud Computing  * Mariangel M, Mariangel Moreno  * Helen W, MIT CIO Symposium  * Jonathan M, Trilogy Financial  * Steven S, Beacon Law Group, LLC  * Carol S, Sanchez & Santiago, CPAs  * Kevin H, WINNING, Inc.  * Alex......

Words: 401 - Pages: 2

Quality Associates, Inc.

...Case Problem 1: Quality Associates, Inc. Question Details Quality Associates, Inc., a consulting firm, advises its clients about sampling and statistical procedures that can be used to control their manufacturing processes. IN one particular application, a client game quality associates a sample of 800 observations taken during a time in which that client's process was operating satisfactorily. The sample standard deviation for there data was .21 ; hence, with so much data, the population standard deviation was assumed to be .21. Quality associates then suggested that random samples of size 30 be taken periodically to monitor the process on an ongoing basis. BY analyzing the new samples, the client could quickly learn whether the process was operating satisfactorily. when the process was not operating satisfactorily, corrective action could be take to eliminate the problem. the design specification indicated the mean for the process should be 12. the hypothesis test suggested Quality Associates follows. : µ=12 : µ12 Corrective action will be take any time H0 is rejected. The following samples were collected at hourly intervals during the first day of operation of the new statistical process control procedure. These data are available in the data set Quality . Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 11.55 11.62 11.91 12.02 11.62 11.69 11.36 12.02 11.52 11.59 11.75 12.05 11.75 11.82 11.95 12.18 11.90 11.97 12.14 12.11 11.64 11.71 ...

Words: 596 - Pages: 3