Monte Sano Research Corp. v. Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc.
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Alabama?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Alabama. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Monte Sano Research Corporation (MSRC), Steven L. Thornton, and Steven B. Teague appealed a preliminary injunction entered against them in an action brought by Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc., a California-based aerospace and defense contractor, Digital Fusion, Inc. (DFI), an Alabama-based holding company, and Digital Fusion Solutions, Inc. (DFSI), a Florida corporation and a subsidiary of DFI (referred to collectively as Kratos), alleging breach of the duty of loyalty, breach of contract, tortious interference with business and contractual relationships, and civil conspiracy. Additionally, Kratos sought injunctive relief. MSRC was formed in 2009 to procure government subcontract work at Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville. Thornton and Teague were employees of DFI, which also engaged in government subcontract work; they became employees of Kratos when Kratos Defense merged with DFI in 2008. Kratos terminated Teagues employment on June 23, 2011. Thornton resigned from Kratos four days later. A dispute arose between the parties which implicated the employment contracts for Thornton and Teague when they sought subsequent work. Upon review of this case, the Supreme Court found that because the provisions of Rule 65(d)(2) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure were not complied with and because there was no evidence of an irreparable injury or the lack of an adequate remedy at law, the trial court erred in issuing the preliminary injunction. The Court reversed the trial courts order entering the preliminary injunction and remanded the case to the trial court with directions that it dissolve the injunction it issued September 10, 2011.
Download PDF
rel: 05/25/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 1101484 Monte Sano R e s e a r c h C o r p o r a t i o n , S t e v e n L. T h o r n t o n , and S t e v e n B. Teague v. Kratos Defense & S e c u r i t y S o l u t i o n s , I n c . , D i g i t a l F u s i o n , I n c . , and D i g i t a l F u s i o n S o l u t i o n s , I n c . Appeal from Madison C i r c u i t (CV-11-662) MAIN, Court Justice. Monte Sano Research B. Corporation Thornton, and Steven Teague injunction entered b y the Madison ("MSRC"), appeal Circuit from Court Steven L. a preliminary against them 1101484 in an action Inc., a b r o u g h t by California-based ("Kratos Defense"); ("DFSI"), (hereinafter breach of civil company, and r e f e r r e d to duty with of Solutions, defense contractor and loyalty, Inc. Digital and collectively b u s i n e s s and conspiracy. Security Fusion, a Florida corporation the interference aerospace Digital Alabama-based h o l d i n g Inc. Kratos Defense & a as breach Fusion of Kratos an Solutions, subsidiary "Kratos"), contractual Additionally, ("DFI"), 1 contract, of DFI alleging tortious relationships, and sought injunctive formed i n 2009 to p r o c u r e government subcontract relief. MSRC was work at were Redstone Arsenal employees of DFI, in Huntsville. which also Thornton engaged in and Teague government s u b c o n t r a c t w o r k ; t h e y became e m p l o y e e s o f K r a t o s when Defense merged w i t h employment four days on DFI June 23, i n 2008. 2011. Kratos Thornton terminated resigned Kratos Teague's from Kratos later. K r a t o s f i l e d as p a r t o f t h e r e c o r d a f e d e r a l F o r m 8-K, w h i c h s t a t e s t h a t K r a t o s D e f e n s e a n d DFI e x e c u t e d a " m e r g e r agreement" i n 2008. H o w e v e r , t h e c o m p l a i n t was f i l e d i n t h e names o f t h e t h r e e s e p a r a t e e n t i t i e s - - K r a t o s D e f e n s e , D F I , and DFSI, which appears i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h a merger of Kratos D e f e n s e and DFI. F o r p u r p o s e s o f t h i s o p i n i o n , we r e f e r t o K r a t o s D e f e n s e , D F I , a n d D F S I c o l l e c t i v e l y as Kratos. 1 2 1101484 An is o f t h e n a t u r e o f government e s s e n t i a l t o an u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h i s States at explanation Army awards government Redstone Arsenal contracts i n H u n t s v i l l e under a s a n AMCOM E x p r e s s c o n t r a c t . contract, entities and (2) p r o g r a m m a t i c ; analytical. referred Those entities that a r e awarded assembles a available to A BPA BPA team team, i n the subcontractors, and other qualified i n the specific work assignment f o r which 2 which group that team will be work the prospective prime and employees o f members. and t h e i r domain prime specific subcontractors members, i n c l u d i n g s u b c o n t r a c t o r s be a a prospective performing includes c o n t r a c t o r and i t s employees, BPAs a r e contractors." contractor i t f o r an award o f c o n t r a c t i n g d o m a i n s : (1) f o r a BPA a w a r d , assist i s referred to ("BPAs") f r o m t h e A r m y . competing assignments. what providers (3) t e c h n i c a l ; a n d (4) b u s i n e s s t o b y t h e Army as " p r i m e Before The U n i t e d to service compete w i t h i n a "domain" arefour separately recognized logistics; case. work P u r s u a n t t o t h e AMCOM E x p r e s s 2 m u l t i - y e a r b l a n k e t purchase agreements There contract The BPA employees, team would related to the specific t h e team i s c o m p e t i n g . AMCOM r e f e r s t o t h e A r m y A v i a t i o n a n d M i s s i l e Command, i s headquartered a t Redstone A r s e n a l i n H u n t s v i l l e . 3 1101484 An award o f a BPA, prime c o n t r a c t o r w i l l the future. specific receive Rather, competitively however, against a does BPA entitles other prime known soliciting contractors, t h e Army r e l e a s e s their In t u r n , prime BPA team response. After awards a t a s k order as order, how that information order members "task a task-order solicit f o r awards orders." request can send of In from prime f o r quote t h e TORFQ t o information "statement submitted to b i d for a team proposals, the Army to a prime c o n t r a c t o r . directly the task "technical The task of order work" or wants the instructions prime that may or changed p r i o r i t i e s i s awarded. alongside will an assignment, a a l s o be a c c o m p a n i e d b y instructions," a addresses a p a r t i c u l a r Army Technical task Often, more the a d e s c r i p t i o n f r o m t h e Army e x p l a i n i n g t h e w o r k t o be performed. or a to holder information contractors evaluating order includes technical one members a contractors task-order-proposal ("TORFQ"). that c o n t r a c t u a l work assignments i n assignments work not guarantee The p r i m e area more of a task o f work and s p e c i f i e s contractor to closely perform i t . reflect are usually issued contractor " t e c h n i c a l monitors," 4 subset places government new after a BPA team personnel 1101484 who monitor contracts, or progress through to perform member team is the The other the prime and the paid the assigned for t e c h n i c a l monitors i t s time an allocation to complete In the 2005, ( " C S C " ) , a BPA logistics, Kratos in their specific the Army was i n the its first task in September 2005. what the areas. specific order, labor parties and from ("ROM"). ROM, the technical c a t e g o r i e s , hours A monitor necessary rates. Computer or business of CSC's Science and BPA task order team task over 5 order the describe 10, next as a Corporation not w i t h i n analytical t e c h n i c a l domain. Under assignments the task They s o l i c i t of magnitude provides awarded part CSC which and programmatic, work on subcontractor w i t h i n the t e c h n i c a l domain, but work o n l y obtained a budget, task, Defense perform to of The government seek input from s u b c o n t r a c t o r s t a s k - t e a m members a r o u g h o r d e r is similar work. of contractor. t e a m members w o r k i n g which performance and The pursuant 10, five domain. appeared Army to Kratos years, "merger" of the to awarded the BPA Defense during Kratos 1101484 D e f e n s e and DFI task under orders Also occurred. in Kratos 3 CSC's 2005, Defense r e c e i v e d BPA. DFI, which contracted c o n t r a c t o r s to provide technical, scientific, support to and Defense, employed the Army which Thornton, engineering development, director weapons of supervised 14 in contracts the for maintained more with i n the they indicating 3 See supra who was employed as and integration. employees of this years and oversaw Teague s u p e r v i s e d litigation, area and had with Teague a number o f Thornton Thornton of to had government established several had 12 also and technical established t e c h n i c a l monitors during his industry. were that of time. B o t h T h o r n t o n and while Kratos president associations that with vice 50 24 engineering as i n revenue. than prime Teague, and time and merged engineering-services during relationships years the business monitors 14 At later with served development $9 m i l l i o n employees. worked who approximately approximately subsequent Teague s i g n e d employed they note were with "at DFI will" 1. 6 various and employment later employees. forms with Kratos When Kratos 1101484 Defense merged "Employment contained with and a DFI in Retention 2008, Thornton Agreement" "Non-Competition and with signed an Kratos Non-Interference" that provision and a " C o n f i d e n t i a l I n f o r m a t i o n and N o n - D i s c l o s u r e " p r o v i s i o n . The noncompetition prohibited involved and employees with noninterference from competing Kratos's competitors, c u s t o m e r s , and soliciting Kratos's for two from the agreement, years Defense and concerning any was summaries, and Teague d i d not Both receipt not limited the date the of the i n time, but merger notes, analyses, material s i g n an and "Employment Teague and signed handbook 7 of and the Kratos. Agreement." acknowledging Fusion discussed late studies, for Retention "KRATOS H a n d b o o k f o r D i g i t a l The or forms in secrets, affairs by Kratos restrictions compilations, prepared of nondisclosure trade business date of expired included i n t e l l e c t u a l property, other being Kratos's effective provision the any handbook"). Kratos, soliciting 2008, that which e m p l o y e e s , were a p p l i c a b l e concerning Thornton of the 24, with c o n f i d e n t i a l i n f o r m a t i o n and Kratos's and was Thus, The information business, ("the which DFI. December 2010. provision December provision, the Employees" continuing 1101484 " a t - w i l l " nature employees o f t h e employment r e l a t i o n s h i p in three nonsolicitation employee, places. of Kratos f o r one y e a r The employees after o f f o r m e r DFI handbook addressed and forbade the termination any of h i s or her employment, from s o l i c i t i n g o r e n c o u r a g i n g any K r a t o s to leave Kratos's for employ. the use of trade Kratos's In and c o n f i d e n t i a l 2009, employed by Kratos consultant Thornton a t the time, issued i n f o r m a t i o n by a new c o m p a n y to perform who stock, filed to government contract 23. order McBride acquired obtained i n government 2 0 1 0 , t h e Army sought CSC was o n e o f t h e p r i m e 23. McBride work. interest office business contracting, submitted proposals contractors attended behalf. f o rtask bidding the information 8 space, licenses, m e e t i n g s , a n d t a l k e d w i t h p r i m e c o n t r a c t o r s on MSRC's In A p r i l both to discuss T h o r n t o n h a d no l e g a l tax returns, engage were MSRC was i n c o r p o r a t e d , w i t h M c B r i d e a n d at i t sformation. registered and Teague, met w i t h D o y l e M c B r i d e , a N A S A T e a g u e e a c h o w n i n g 50 p e r c e n t . MSRC expectations who h a d n e v e r b e e n e m p l o y e d b y K r a t o s , S e v e r a l months l a t e r , in employee employees. February starting The h a n d b o o k o u t l i n e d secrets Kratos on order task necessary f o r 1101484 MSRC t o b e c o m e a s u b c o n t r a c t o r f o r CSC o n t a s k o r d e r Thornton that a n d Teague submitting information subcontractor awarded On testified task f o r task order August agreement with MSRC, t o CSC on b e h a l f order 2 0 1 0 , CSC MSRC on t a s k technical subcontract entered order into 23. a subcontract Subsequently, MSRC M c B r i d e , on b e h a l f t o be or December awarded MSRC March 7, 2 0 1 1 , CSC agreement w i t h K r a t o s . T h o r n t o n was i n s t r u m e n t a l to 30, 2 0 1 0 , t h e Army paid f o r t h e work who h a d b e e n r e c o m m e n d e d f o r t h e t a s k I n November On On A p r i l the invoices monitor, instruction. not involved i n o f MSRC t o b e c o m e a technical instruction. forwarded Teague. 23. 17, c o m p l e t e d b y Dan B r o w n , by were Both 23 t o CSC. received i t sf i r s t of they 23. 2010, A l W r i g h t , another also The r e c o r d a technical entered into a indicates that i n getting the subcontract awarded Kratos. The between subcontract between CSC a n d K r a t o s CSC a n d MSRC a n d t h e s u b c o n t r a c t contain the following "H-28. S p e c i a l P r o v i s i o n s a n d language: Clauses "Wherever appropriate to make the following i n c o r p o r a t e d c l a u s e s a p p l i c a b l e t o t h i s Agreement, r e f e r e n c e s t o t h e Government o r C o n t r a c t i n g O f f i c e r shall mean CSC or Subcontracts Administrator 9 1101484 respectively. Furthermore, wherever appropriate, references to Contractor and C o n t r a c t s h a l l mean Subcontractor and S u b c o n t r a c t r e s p e c t i v e l y . "2. Change-Over "Subcontractor may be replaced by a succeeding c o n t r a c t o r ( s ) i n the performance of work c o n t e m p l a t e d by t h i s Agreement. I t is recognized that the best i n t e r e s t s of the Government will be served through employment by t h e s u c c e e d i n g c o n t r a c t o r ( s ) o f t h o s e S u b c o n t r a c t o r e m p l o y e e s who may b e acceptable to the succeeding c o n t r a c t o r ( s ) and the Government. The Subcontractor s h a l l cooperate f u l l y with the Government, CSC, and the succeeding contractor(s) designated i n w r i t i n g b y CSC t o e f f e c t a n orderly and efficient transition. This includes: fl " ( b ) P e r m i t t i n g e m p l o y e e s t o be Government or the succeeding p o s s i b l e employment; i n t e r v i e w e d by t h e contractor(s) for "(c) Releasing any e m p l o y e e who chooses to employed by a s u c c e e d i n g c o n t r a c t o r ( s ) " This changeover p r o v i s i o n subcontractor and go permitted t o work employees f o r another mandatory d i s p u t e - r e s o l u t i o n procedure litigation b a s e d on s u c h a change 10 that and to be leave one established must p r e c e d e i n employment. a any 1101484 In o r around J u l y 2012, Wright, notified related Teague o f a p o s s i b l e new t e c h n i c a l i n s t r u c t i o n to designing asked Teague instruction, for had worked together had never a laser his Teague been a t e c h n i c a l monitor, target advice simulator. on assistance previously, although employed by K r a t o s . for testified Kratos that under he b e l i e v e d AMCOM E x p r e s s , Thus, when another Teague BPA team affirmatively. McBride, Kratos Teague opportunity then that Teague t o employ never Brown as a to MSRC, n o t work had p r e v i o u s l y wanted Brown, introduced o f MSRC, r e a c h e d Teague i f would he Brown and Brown had r e f u s e d . i f he to asked Brown because Wright f o r access on b e h a l f contends asked and Teague According that sought t o g e t Brown t o work f o r K r a t o s the not at Kratos. Wright that Wright with s u g g e s t e d Brown b e c a u s e Brown T e a g u e c o u l d g e t B r o w n o n AMCOM E x p r e s s . Teague When had to Wright Brown consider responded t o McBride, and an a g r e e m e n t w i t h presented team member Brown. i t with the even though 2 0 1 1 , MSRC h i r e d K i m H o l t a n d M i c h a e l Swamp, T e a g u e was e m p l o y e d b y K r a t o s . Around A p r i l neither o f whom w e r e occasions former employees of K r a t o s . i n t h e s p r i n g o f 2 0 1 1 , Teague 11 and Angela On several Plunkett, 1101484 an employee forwarded o f Kratos, them t o M c B r i d e f o r terminated available with by Kratos positions several Kratos when t h e l u n c h e o n Lonnie was Trippe informed stated that p r e p a r e ROMs f o r MSRC a n d t h e n submission. June MSRC. 2011, she Teague held with MSRC. occurred. David Smith, was i n t e r v i e w e d 2011, a f t e r also attended about p o s s i b l e who testified leave that Kratos In supervision neither meeting o f 2011 t o i n f o r m i sunclear as t o having a lunch had lunch with with Teague with Teague. at which MSRC. he Trippe h i m f o r a p o s i t i o n w i t h MSRC a n d MSRC h i r e d J e f f f o rKratos Thornton h i s employment under n o r Teague with Blailock, Teague, b u t who induced him to t o go t o w o r k f o r MSRC. June supervisor, worked about b y Swamp a n d was h i r e d b y S u b s e q u e n t l y , i n June 2011, had p r e v i o u s l y was who h a d p r e v i o u s l y opportunities Swamp i n t e r v i e w e d inquired a lunch The r e c o r d t h a t Teague d i d n o t encourage h i m t o l e a v e Kratos. When P l u n k e t t employees i n t h e s p r i n g worked f o r K r a t o s , i n spring in with them o f o p p o r t u n i t i e s McBride helped 2011, Stacey learned that had resigned investigation, Kratos Rock, who several i n a short terminated 12 served employees period. as Thornton's under Teague's Following Rock's T e a g u e ' s e m p l o y m e n t on J u n e 1101484 23, 2011; Thornton Thornton then purchased went resigned t o work MSRC f r o m M c B r i d e four f o r MSRC. later. Teague Thornton filed and Teague a l l e g i n g a complaint specifically Teague, w h i l e employed by K r a t o s , a s s i s t e d subsequently a g a i n s t MSRC, that Thornton misappropriated information. proprietary and Kratos business confidential also and i n the creation of MSRC, s o l i c i t e d K r a t o s e m p l o y e e s , w r o n g f u l l y d i v e r t e d opportunities, and a n d b e c a m e i t s CEO a n d p r e s i d e n t . On J u n e 2 9 , 2 0 1 1 , K r a t o s Thornton, days alleged and that MSRC w r o n g f u l l y d i v e r t e d b u s i n e s s o p p o r t u n i t i e s and m i s a p p r o p r i a t e d confidential a temporary injunction court to complaint on J u n e $100,000 the t r i a l however, ("TRO") request bond. hearings only Kratos on J u l y submitted the complete Kratos amended i t s conspiracy. The t r i a l 19 a n d 2 0 , 2 0 1 1 , i n w h i c h Based MSRC, 13 30, 2011, t h e t r i a l subsequently c o u r t , MSRC, T h o r n t o n , witness. applied f o r f o r a TRO a n d o r d e r e d three witnesses. one Kratos and f o r a p r e l i m i n a r y On J u n e t o add a c l a i m a l l e g i n g c i v i l presented present order 29, 2011. Kratos's conducted Kratos of restraining granted post court and p r o p r i e t a r y i n f o r m a t i o n . on t i m e constraints and Teague were Thornton, deposition and able to Teague, transcripts of 1101484 Thornton, Stacey Rock, Jeffrey Blailock, David Smith. At the conclusion trial judge trial c o u r t " o t h e r w i s e e n t e r s an o r d e r . " stated post-hearing that briefs and Teague f i l e d which issued thereafter, Kratos's MSRC, over on S e p t e m b e r request Thornton, and two months 4 among other and Teague Rule 4(a)(1)(A), Teague a l s o injunction On filed MSRC, preliminary injunction and Teague raise A p p . P. an e m e r g e n c y m o t i o n pending appeal, A l a . R. appeal, which Thornton, MSRC, issues things, assigned or appealed. Thornton, and to stay the preliminary this and Teague s h o u l d be d i s s o l v e d . several granted and e n j o i n e d funded J u n e 2 0 1 1 . MSRC, T h o r n t o n , Shortly court contract See 7, 2 0 1 1 , previously. p e r f o r m i n g a n y w o r k o n a n y AMCOM E x p r e s s after filed t o d i s s o l v e t h e TRO, injunction from, u n t i l the Both p a r t i e s 10, 2 0 1 1 , t h e t r i a l Teague hearing, the On S e p t e m b e r a motion f o r a preliminary T r i p p e , and be e x t e n d e d 22, 2011. MSRC, T h o r n t o n , had been o f t h e two-day t h e TRO w o u l d on J u l y Lonnie Court argue MSRC, on a p p e a l ; h o w e v e r , denied. that the Thornton, because We n o t e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t a t t e m p t e d t o e x t e n d t h e TRO. H o w e v e r , t h e TRO h a d e x p i r e d ; m o r e o v e r , t h e TRO f a i l e d t o c o m p l y w i t h R u l e 6 5 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. We p r e t e r m i t f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n of t h i s issue because of our r e s o l u t i o n of the preliminary-injunction issue before us. 4 14 1101484 we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l it failed reach t o comply w i t h any o f t h e i r When this Rule other Court court's order i s o v e r b r o a d and t h a t 6 5 , A l a . R. C i v . P., we n e e d n o t issues. reviews the grant or denial preliminary i n j u n c t i o n , " ' [ w ] e r e v i e w t h e ... [ c ] o u r t ' s rulings novo de preliminary Holiday and i t s ultimate injunction Isle, for LLC v. A d k i n s , [an decision excess] of to Gonzales v. O Centro Vegetal, 546 U.S. 4 1 8 , 428 Espirita a legal issue the discretion.'" 12 S o . 3 d 1 1 7 3 , 1 1 7 6 ( A l a . (quoting of Beneficente 2008) Uniao do (2006)). "A p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n s h o u l d be i s s u e d o n l y when t h e p a r t y s e e k i n g an i n j u n c t i o n d e m o n s t r a t e s : "'"(1) that without the i n j u n c t i o n the [party] would s u f f e r i r r e p a r a b l e i n j u r y ; (2) t h a t t h e [ p a r t y ] h a s no a d e q u a t e r e m e d y a t l a w ; (3) t h a t t h e [ p a r t y ] h a s a t l e a s t a reasonable chance of success on t h e u l t i m a t e m e r i t s o f h i s c a s e ; a n d (4) t h a t t h e h a r d s h i p i m p o s e d on t h e [ p a r t y o p p o s i n g the preliminary injunction] by the i n j u n c t i o n would not unreasonably outweigh the b e n e f i t a c c r u i n g t o t h e [ p a r t y seeking the i n j u n c t i o n ] . " ' " Holiday 869 12 S o . 3 d a t 1 1 7 6 ( q u o t i n g So. 2d 1 1 0 9 , 1113 Tapscan, in Isle, (Ala. 2003), I n c . , 646 S o . 2 d 5 8 5 , 587 Holiday Isle)). 15 Ormco C o r p . v . J o h n s , quoting (Ala. i n turn Perley v. 1994) ( a l t e r a t i o n s 1101484 " ' " I r r e p a r a b l e i n j u r y " i s an i n j u r y t h a t i s n o t redressable i n a c o u r t o f l a w t h r o u g h an a w a r d o f money d a m a g e s . ' [ P e r l e y v . T a p s c a n , I n c . , ] 646 S o . 2d [ 5 8 5 , ] 587 [ ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) ] ( c i t i n g T r i p l e J C a t t l e , Inc. v . C h a m b e r s , 5 5 1 S o . 2 d 280 ( A l a . 1989)). However, 'courts will not use the e x t r a o r d i n a r y power of i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f merely to allay an a p p r e h e n s i o n o f a p o s s i b l e i n j u r y ; t h e i n j u r y must be imminent and i r r e p a r a b l e i n a c o u r t at law.' M a r t i n v . C i t y o f L i n d e n , 667 S o . 2 d 7 3 2 , 7 3 6 ( A l a . 1995); see a l s o Borey v. N a t i o n a l Union F i r e I n s . Co. o f P i t t s b u r g h , 934 F . 2 d 3 0 , 34 ( 2 d C i r . 1 9 9 1 ) (stating that 'a m e r e p o s s i b i l i t y o f i r r e p a r a b l e harm i s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o j u s t i f y t h e d r a s t i c remedy of a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n ' ) . " Ormco Corp., recover entitled v. 869 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 1 3 - 1 4 . damages h a s an adequate t o an i n j u n c t i o n . Webb-Stiles party seeking that i t lacks A plaintiff remedy SouthTrust C o . , 931 S o . 2 d 70 6, Bank o f Alabama, 70 9 can a t law and i s n o t (Ala. t h e i n j u n c t i o n has t h e burden an a d e q u a t e remedy. that 2005). N.A. The of demonstrating Ormco C o r p . , 869 S o . 2 d a t 1113. In i t s order Teague, the t r i a l p r e l i m i n a r i l y e n j o i n i n g MSRC, T h o r n t o n , a n d court stated: " T h i s m a t t e r i s b e f o r e t h e C o u r t on [ K r a t o s ' s ] Motion f o r P r e l i m i n a r y I n j u n c t i o n against Defendants S t e v e n L. T h o r n t o n ( ' T h o r n t o n ' ) , S t e v e n B. T e a g u e ('Teague') and Monte Sano Research Corporation ('MSRC') ( c o l l e c t i v e l y r e f e r r e d t o a s ' D e f e n d a n t s ' ) . A h e a r i n g o n t h i s m o t i o n was h e l d b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t on J u l y 1 9 - 2 0 , 2 0 1 1 . A f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g t h e e v i d e n c e and t e s t i m o n y , a r g u m e n t s f r o m c o u n s e l , and b r i e f s 16 1101484 submitted i n this h e r e b y GRANTED. action, [Kratos's] Motion i s "The C o u r t f i n d s t h a t [ K r a t o s h a s ] , u n d e r t h e f a c t s and circumstances of t h i s case, a protectable interest in [ i t s ] relationships with [ i t s ] employees, customers, i n c l u d i n g the United States Army, and i n [ i t s ] c o n f i d e n t i a l i n f o r m a t i o n . The Court f u r t h e r f i n d s that there i s a substantial l i k e l i h o o d t h a t [ K r a t o s ] w i l l p r e v a i l on t h e m e r i t s of [ i t s ] breach of duty o f l o y a l t y c l a i m s against T h o r n t o n and Teague, [ i t s ] b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t c l a i m s against Thornton and Teague and [ i t s ] t o r t i o u s i n t e r f e r e n c e c l a i m s a g a i n s t T h o r n t o n , Teague, and MSRC. The C o u r t a d d i t i o n a l l y f i n d s t h a t a b a l a n c i n g of t h e harms f a v o r s g r a n t i n g t h i s i n j u n c t i o n and that i r r e p a r a b l e i n j u r y t o [Kratos] w i l l r e s u l t i f a preliminary i n j u n c t i o n i s not issued." The t r i a l court enjoined MSRC, T h o r n t o n , a n d T e a g u e " i ) p e r f o r m i n g a n y w o r k on o r r e c e i v i n g a n y compensation f o r s e r v i c e s rendered pursuant t o a n y AMCOM E X P R E S S c o n t r a c t f o r a n y o f the prime c o n t r a c t o r s to that contract, including but not l i m i t e d t o , Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC); A v i a t i o n and Missile Solutions (AMS); Torch Technologies; Radiance Technologies; and Sigmatech, Inc.; provided, however, Thornton, Teague, and MSRC are not p r o h i b i t e d from p e r f o r m i n g work p r e v i o u s l y a s s i g n e d o r f u n d e d on o r b e f o r e J u n e 29, 2011. " i i ) u s i n g o r d i s c l o s i n g any t r a d e s e c r e t s , confidential information, or proprietary information of [Kratos]. " i i i ) s o l i c i t i n g f o r employment [Kratos's] c u r r e n t employees as o f June 29, 2011." 17 from: 1101484 In i t s order, and Teague at Redstone from p r o c u r i n g otherwise. and Arsenal, Kratos was contracted prime as a any work from regardless concerned with work s o l e l y and had The r e c o r d other MSRC, any prime of contractor domain--technical task with MSRC c a n n o t p r o v i d e contractor or i s overbroad The r e c o r d with only Thornton, indicates order 23; had C S C , b u t no work shows MSRC, h o w e v e r , h a d that only other performed i n the p r i m e c o n t r a c t o r s t o do w o r k o t h e r i n the technical any prime only subcontractor domain. negotiated for enjoined by t h e evidence. contractors; technical court T h u s , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e i n j u n c t i o n i s not supported that that the t r i a l domain. subcontract This than injunction directs work a t Redstone Arsenal i n any domain, which i s too broad a prohibition. Furthermore, reveals that failing to injunction Rule an e x a m i n a t i o n i tv i o l a t e d provide 65(d)(2), the reasons and f a i l i n g 65(d)(2), Rule of the t r i a l court's A l a . R. C i v . P., b y f o r the issuance t o be s p e c i f i c i n pertinent part, order of the i n i t s terms. provides as follows: "(2) E v e r y o r d e r g r a n t i n g an i n j u n c t i o n shall set f o r t h the reasons f o r i t s issuance; s h a l l be specific i n terms; shall describe i n reasonable d e t a i l , and n o t by r e f e r e n c e t o t h e complaint o r 18 1101484 other document the restrained " It is apparent 65(d)(2). of the Here, four injunction that Kratos does not court the as or order although requirements the had specific the describe injunction, that i t be 65(d)(2) were not evidence of irreparable injury at preliminary entering trial be the trial injunction. the p r e l i m i n a r y court injunction to law, with We with i t issued interpreted as and 19 Rule three preliminary and does state requirements, The remedy i t trial at law i t i s mandatory that f o r the or issuance and that acts sought to provisions of because the the there lack erred i n j u n c t i o n and precluding with i n i t s terms, act or be recite a supra, the reverse S e p t e m b e r 10, of reasons the court directions that does adequate because complied comply those specific Therefore, to i t s decision. give restrained. remedy of an i n reasonable d e t a i l an Isle, P u r s u a n t t o R u l e 65, a p r e l i m i n a r y - i n j u n c t i o n order it not court for whether sought issuance each reasons address for Kratos. the does trial for established not of acts outlined i n Holiday give did existed that act of in trial 2011. Kratos, This Rule was no adequate issuing court's remand the i t dissolve an the the order case to the preliminary decision is should be i t deem not i t 1101484 necessary, from requesting the t r i a l court to again p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n , p r o v i d e d t h a t any r e s u l t i n g is narrower i n scope and c o m p l i e s w i t h Rule issue injunction 6 5 , A l a . R. C i v . P. R E V E R S E D AND REMANDED Malone, Murdock, J . , concurs Woodall, Bolin, Parker, WITH D I R E C T I O N S . C . J . , and S t u a r t and Wise, J J . , concur. specially. a n d Shaw, J J . , c o n c u r J . , recuses himself. 20 a i n the result. 1101484 MURDOCK, J u s t i c e (concurring In a d d i t i o n to the reversing the injunction, relief in opinion should can I court's case notes, our issued the for cases only order two reasons. hold that when irreparable injury law. See 3d So. 3d 1173, O 12 So. Centro Gonzales v. 546 418, U.S. action Inc., and the the can no 2008), I t appears Defense are be as the main injunction the injunction adequate Holiday Beneficente plaintiffs injuries me a c t i o n s at law with v. turn Vegetal, the Security addressed in do that remedy LLC quoting Uniao to & Isle, would causes Solutions, and the award an that of damages. Second, the than j u s t the Monte other (Ala. Kratos injunctive injunction, that party (quoting 1176 of seeking for preliminary First, f o r w h i c h i t has Espirita by the a preliminary party the at (2006)). asserted plaintiffs' monetary 428 entering appropriateness demonstrate that, without Adkins, of reasons s t a t e d i n the main o p i n i o n question this be suffer at trial specially). Sano injunctive relief p a r t i e s named i n t h i s Research under a c o n t r a c t Corporation b e t w e e n i t and 21 ordered action. from would a f f e c t more I t would continuing Computer S c i e n c e to prevent perform Corporation. 1101484 It therefore would be would appear a necessary party that Computer to t h i s 22 Science action. Corporation
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
