Mark Smith, Mark & Tammy Smith, LLC, Tee Daniel, and Darin Kidd v. Nerium International, LLC

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJune 5, 2018
Docket05-18-00617-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Mark Smith, Mark & Tammy Smith, LLC, Tee Daniel, and Darin Kidd v. Nerium International, LLC (Mark Smith, Mark & Tammy Smith, LLC, Tee Daniel, and Darin Kidd v. Nerium International, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mark Smith, Mark & Tammy Smith, LLC, Tee Daniel, and Darin Kidd v. Nerium International, LLC, (Tex. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

ACCEPTED 05-18-00617-CV FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 6/5/2018 1:17 PM LISA MATZ CLERK

NO. 05-18-00617-CV

IN THE FILED IN FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS 5th COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS DALLAS, TEXAS 6/5/2018 1:17:27 PM __________________________________________________________________ LISA MATZ Clerk MARK SMITH, MARK & TAMMY SMITH, LLC, DARIN KIDD, AND TEE DANIEL, Appellants V. NERIUM INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Appellee __________________________________________________________________

ON APPEAL FROM THE 134TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS __________________________________________________________________

APPELLANTS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY EMERGENCY RELIEF

To the Honorable Fifth Court of Appeals:

Appellants Mark Smith, Mark & Tammy Smith, LLC, Darin Kidd, and Tee

Daniel, file their Motion for Temporary Emergency Relief pending resolution of this

interlocutory appeal pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 29.3, and would respectfully show the

Court the following:

I. Introduction. In this interlocutory appeal, Appellants challenge a temporary injunction (CR

700; Appendix A) enjoining them from soliciting salespeople who work for Nerium

International, LLC (“Nerium”), the company Appellants were previously associated

1 AUS-6558790-1 with. Because this is a significant restraint of trade that hinders Appellants’ ability to

earn a living and puts them at risk of inadvertent violation, Appellants request very

narrow emergency temporary relief to preserve their rights pending resolution of this

appeal. Specifically, Appellants request that this Court modify the temporary

injunction: 1) to conform to the contract between the parties; and 2) to allow

Appellants to be able to avoid inadvertent violations of the injunction. See In re Tex.

Nat. Res. Conserv. Comm’n, 85 S.W.3d 201, 207 (Tex. 2002) (“In its discretion, the court

of appeals may grant temporary orders” in connection with an interlocutory appeal

challenging an injunction).

Temporary orders are necessary to preserve the rights of Appellants pending

appeal and the compelling circumstances warranting such relief are discussed below.

See Oryon Techs., Inc. v. Marcus, 429 S.W.3d 762 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, no pet.).

Further, the narrow relief requested herein will not prejudice Nerium because: 1) the

relief under issue 1 is based on the language of the contract between the parties—a

contract that Nerium drafted; and 2) the relief under issue 2 will enable Appellants to

comply with the temporary injunction without fear of inadvertent violations.

II. Background facts. Nerium is a multi-level marketing company that sells beauty products with a

network of “tens of thousands” of independent distributors referred to as “Brand

Partners.” (CR 53, 57). Brand Partners are independent contractors. (CR 53; CR 98 at

2 AUS-6558790-1 § 1.11). Nerium’s Brand Partners earn money by selling Nerium’s products and by

enrolling new Brand Partners to do the same. (Id.).

Nerium has developed “Policies and Procedures” (“P&P”), and requests that

each Brand Partner accept and agree to them. (CR 96; Appendix B). The P&P

contains the non-solicitation provision at issue. Under Section Three of the P&P,

Brand Partners may personally “sponsor” other Brand Partners by introducing them

to Nerium and recruiting them to become Brand Partners. (CR 101). All recruits who

flow from these personally sponsored Brand Partners are called the Brand Partner’s

“downline.” (Id.). Brand Partners receive commissions both on their own sales and on

sales in their downline. (Id.).

Prior to joining Nerium, Mark Smith and his wife, Tammy Smith, worked with

another direct-sales company, Prepaid Legal Services, Inc. (“Prepaid”). (CR 58). While

at Prepaid, the Smiths, without assistance from Nerium, built a large network of

downline distributors. (CR 230). When the Smiths departed Prepaid to associate with

Nerium, 1 they brought key people from the network of their downline distributors

with them. (CR 231).

Nerium asserts that in mid-2017, it implemented a system where Brand

Partners were required to agree to the amended P&P, including the non-solicitation

provision, in order to access their “back office,” a virtual office where Brand Partners

1 The Smiths assert they were never Brand Partners, but can be considered Brand Partners for purposes of this motion.

3 AUS-6558790-1 could log on and manage their sales. (CR 60). The portion of the P&Ps on which

Nerium relies is as follows:

11.06 Non-Solicitation and Non-Competition. Brand Partner acknowledges and agrees that the only way to protect the good will, confidential, proprietary and trade secret information of Company and the integrity and stability of the sales force created by other Brand Partners is to prohibit all Brand Partners from recruiting and soliciting of other Brand Partners to other companies during the term of this agreement and for a reasonable time thereafter. Consequently, in consideration for all of the rights granted by this Agreement, including the protection this non-solicitation provision affords to Brand Partner, for the term of this Agreement and for two (2) years after termination hereof, for any reason, Brand Partner agrees not to, directly or indirectly, recruit or solicit any of Company’s other Brand Partners to join other direct sales, multi-level or network marketing companies.

(CR 116; emphasis added).

Appellants ended their association with Nerium in March 2018, and have

joined Jeunesse Global Holdings, LLC (“Jeunesse”), which is a multi-level marketing

program similar to Nerium. Nerium brought this suit to enjoin Appellants from

soliciting any Nerium Brand Partners to leave Nerium and join Jeunesse (or any other

marketing program). (CR 12). The trial court granted a temporary restraining order

and then a temporary injunction, prohibiting Appellants as follows:

The Injunction Restrained Parties [Appellants] are prohibited from directly or indirectly recruiting or soliciting any of Nerium’s Brand Partners to join any other direct sales, multi-level marketing, or network- marketing company, including but not limited to Jeunesse Global Holdings, LLC.

4 AUS-6558790-1 (CR 700; Appendix A). On its face, this injunction prohibits Appellants from

soliciting any of Nerium’s Brand Partners, including those Brand Partners whom

Appellants personally brought into Nerium, such as the extensive downline that the

Smiths brought with them to Nerium when they left Prepaid.

As discussed below, this prohibition is contrary to another provision of the

P&P that specifically authorizes Appellants to promote competing marketing

programs, such as Jeunesse, to Brand Partners who were personally sponsored by

Appellants. (CR 99). These two contractual provisions must be construed together to

allow an exception to the enjoined conduct. Appellants seek temporary emergency

relief modifying the injunction allow Appellants to promote other marketing

programs, including but not limited to Jeunesse, to those Nerium Brand Partners

whom Appellants personally sponsored while at Nerium, as expressly allowed under

the P&P.

In addition, Appellants must be provided sufficient information to be able to

comply with the temporary injunction.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Seagull Energy E & P, Inc. v. Eland Energy, Inc.
207 S.W.3d 342 (Texas Supreme Court, 2006)
In Re Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
85 S.W.3d 201 (Texas Supreme Court, 2002)
Vaughn v. Drennon
202 S.W.3d 308 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006)
De Gonzalez v. Mission American Insurance Co.
795 S.W.2d 734 (Texas Supreme Court, 1990)
Marsh USA Inc. v. Cook
354 S.W.3d 764 (Texas Supreme Court, 2011)
International Printing Pressmen & Assistants' Union v. Smith
198 S.W.2d 729 (Texas Supreme Court, 1946)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Mark Smith, Mark & Tammy Smith, LLC, Tee Daniel, and Darin Kidd v. Nerium International, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mark-smith-mark-tammy-smith-llc-tee-daniel-and-darin-kidd-v-nerium-texapp-2018.