Non compete contesting not clear

[martinezm60050]

I am having an issue in Illinois with a non-compete. I am trying to declare the non-compete as not valid. I have spoken with 3 Employment and Labor law attorneys and I am more confused now than I was at the start of this matter.

My question what is the difference between an injunction- filing an independent action to challenge the validity of the non-compete?
Also, does anyone know if filing an injunction is any more money than filing independent action?

 

[quincy]

I am having an issue in Illinois with a non-compete. I am trying to declare the non-compete as not valid. I have spoken with 3 Employment and Labor law attorneys and I am more confused now than I was at the start of this matter.

My question what is the difference between an injunction- filing an independent action to challenge the validity of the non-compete?
Also, does anyone know if filing an injunction is any more money than filing independent action?

I am not sure I understand your question. An injunction is a court order that commands a party act or prohibits a party from acting.

What is it about the noncompete that makes you think it could be invalid?

Why are you arguing its validity?

 

[martinezm60050]

OK, so the injunction is a court order. A filing an independent action to challenge is not the same thing

 

[martinezm60050]

The reason I am asking is one is asking me for $10K for the injunction and $2,500 for filing an independent action to challenge

 

[quincy]

OK, so the injunction is a court order. A filing an independent action to challenge is not the same thing

One can get an injunction before a lawsuit commences or it can be a result of a court action but you are right that they are not the same thing.

For example: If you intend to sue someone who is holding important documents that you will need your defendant to produce, you can seek an injunction from the court that prohibits the disposal of those documents.

I have NO idea why the $10,000 for an injunction and $2500 for the civil action, unless the $10,000 is a flat rate and covers all expenses and the $2500 is to retain the services of an attorney who charges an hourly rate.

Discuss fees with the attorney(s) you meet with and don't sign any contract until you fully understand exactly what it is you are paying for.

 

[xylene]

Get a third opinion

 

[quincy]

Here is a link to an American Bar article on injunctions that is informative:
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/woman-advocate/practice/2018/preliminary-injunction-relief/
And here is a link to a FreeAdvice staff-written article: https://law.freeadvice.com/litigation/legal_remedies/refuse-injunction-relief.htm

 

[Taxing Matters]

I am having an issue in Illinois with a non-compete. I am trying to declare the non-compete as not valid. I have spoken with 3 Employment and Labor law attorneys and I am more confused now than I was at the start of this matter.

My question what is the difference between an injunction- filing an independent action to challenge the validity of the non-compete?
Also, does anyone know if filing an injunction is any more money than filing independent action?

An injunction is one type of remedy for which you may sue. You've said that there is a noncompete agreement, which is a contract, and I assume you are the employee who would be limited if that noncompete is valid. You want the noncompete determined to be invalid. Generally you'd deal with that in one of two ways: (1) wait until the employer sues you for allegedly violating the agreement and then defend the claim on the basis that the agreement is invalid or (2) you sue for a declaratory judgment, in which the court issues an opinion on the validity of the agreement. I do not see that you have any basis to sue for an injunction. What exactly you be asking the court to prohibit the employer from doing? You cannot get an injunction preventing the employer from suing you since that is a right the employer has. And that's about the only thing the employer can do if you violate the noncompete, unless your noncompete contains something unusual in it.

 

[quincy]

The three employment law lawyers contacted by Martinez must know far more than has been disclosed here because I am not at all sure what sort of injunctive relief would be sought for a noncompete agreement - unless perhaps one to stop enforcement of the noncompete (stop Martinez from working with a competitor) until the validity of the noncompete can be decided? Beats me.

 

[Taxing Matters]

The three employment law lawyers contacted by Martinez must know far more than has been disclosed here because I am not at all sure what sort of injunctive relief would be sought for a noncompete agreement - unless perhaps one to stop enforcement of the noncompete (stop Martinez from working with a competitor) until the validity of the noncompete can be decided? Beats me.

Right, that was my thought too. We don't have the benefit of reading the noncompete, but usually there isn't anything that the employer can do to prevent the employee from taking a competing job, so there wouldn't be any need for an injunction to prevent the employer from blocking that. And you don't get injunctions to prevent the employer from suing over an alleged breach of the noncompete. The employer has the right to sue and the court would say an injunction is premature. The action for a declaratory judgment is the closest thing to what the OP seems to want, but it's not clear if that is what any of the lawyers discussed. So I'm a bit baffled what that one attorney thought the OP could sue to prevent.

 

[quincy]

Right, that was my thought too. We don't have the benefit of reading the noncompete, but usually there isn't anything that the employer can do to prevent the employee from taking a competing job, so there wouldn't be any need for an injunction to prevent the employer from blocking that. And you don't get injunctions to prevent the employer from suing over an alleged breach of the noncompete. The employer has the right to sue and the court would say an injunction is premature. The action for a declaratory judgment is the closest thing to what the OP seems to want, but it's not clear if that is what any of the lawyers discussed. So I'm a bit baffled what that one attorney thought the OP could sue to prevent.

Perhaps the attorney thought the $10,000 figure would discourage any attempt by Martinez to seek an injunction.

 

[martinezm60050]

I am in Illinois Need some advice. I have a non-compete I asked my former employer if they would review and potentially modify because it is too broad and to limiting which is hurting my ability to gain employment. The CEO agreed to discuss, however, my concern is the meeting that is set up has VP of HR, HT Manager their in-house attorney. My concern is it's just me I am not a lawyer, the non compete is a legal document containing verbiage that I have no clue what it means or what it will limit.

I would like to have my lawyer present to review any proposed or suggested changes Lawyers understand Lawyer lingo. I am concern that my employer will view this negative and take a defensive posture and not want to talk. Any thoughts

 

[Zigner]

I am in Illinois Need some advice. I have a non-compete I asked my former employer if they would review and potentially modify because it is too broad and to limiting which is hurting my ability to gain employment. The CEO agreed to discuss, however, my concern is the meeting that is set up has VP of HR, HT Manager their in-house attorney. My concern is it's just me I am not a lawyer, the non compete is a legal document containing verbiage that I have no clue what it means or what it will limit.

I would like to have my lawyer present to review any proposed or suggested changes Lawyers understand Lawyer lingo. I am concern that my employer will view this negative and take a defensive posture and not want to talk. Any thoughts

Have you asked your employer if you can have your attorney present?

 

[martinezm60050]

Not yet I am seeking advice on how to do it without coming across as confrontational or not trusting.

 

[quincy]

I am in Illinois Need some advice. I have a non-compete I asked my former employer if they would review and potentially modify because it is too broad and to limiting which is hurting my ability to gain employment. The CEO agreed to discuss, however, my concern is the meeting that is set up has VP of HR, HT Manager their in-house attorney. My concern is it's just me I am not a lawyer, the non compete is a legal document containing verbiage that I have no clue what it means or what it will limit.

I would like to have my lawyer present to review any proposed or suggested changes Lawyers understand Lawyer lingo. I am concern that my employer will view this negative and take a defensive posture and not want to talk. Any thoughts

You are smart to have your own lawyer review any noncompete agreement prior to signing it, even if your attorney is not with you at the meeting.

I see nothing wrong with you asking your employer to include your attorney in the discussion or to tell your employer that you need to review the noncompete with your attorney before you sign it.

Do NOT be intimidated into signing something you do not fully understand.