Legal Opinion
Uarco Inc. v. Lam
District Court, D. Hawaii
Decided September 14, 1998No. Civ. 98-00177 ACKPublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
KAY, Chief Judge.
Before the Court is a motion for a preliminary injunction by an employer against two former employees. The Plaintiff employer, UARCO, and its successor corporation, Standard Register, (“Plaintiffs”) seek to enjoin Defendants Kerry Lam and Eliott Lum (“Defendants”) from violating a noncompete clause in their contracts with UARCO. Pursuant to the findings of fact and conclusions of law below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
The Court previously denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Van Dusen v. BarrackSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Aydin Corporation, a Delaware Corporation v. Loral Corporation, a New York Corporation, and Conic Corporation, a Delaware CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1983
- United States v. Odessa Union Warehouse Co-Op Cecil A. Schell Edward Sewall Marvin KleynCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
- Equifax Services, Inc., D/B/A Equifax Commercial Specialists F/k/a White & White Inspection and Audit Service, Inc. v. Steven A. HitzCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1990
- Rent-A-Center, Inc. v. Canyon Television & Appliance Rental, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Aon Consulting v. Midlands FinancialNebraska Supreme Court · 2008
- Smallwood v. NCsoft Corp.District Court, D. Hawaii · 2010
- Allegiance Healthcare Corp. v. ColemanDistrict Court, S.D. Florida · 2002
- Matsuda v. WadaDistrict Court, D. Hawaii · 1999
- OFFICEMAX INCORPORATED v. County Qwick Print, Inc.District Court, D. Maine · 2010
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.