McGriff Insurance Services, Inc. v. Littlestone

District Court, M.D. Florida·Decided September 21, 2021·No. 2:21-cv-00480·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

MCGRIFF INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., f/k/a BB&T Insurance Services, Inc.,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 2:21-cv-480-JES-NPM

EUGENE LITTLESTONE, CALEB LITTLESTONE, DAWN DISCH, DOUGLAS FIELDS, MICHAEL FIELDS, and ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.,

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. #17) filed on July 12, 2021 and construed as a motion for preliminary injunction. (Doc. #19.) Defendants Eugene Littlestone (E. Littlestone), Caleb Littlestone (C. Littlestone), Dawn Disch (Disch)1, Douglas Fields (D. Fields), Michael Fields (M. Fields)2 and Alliant Insurance Services, Inc.

1 Defendant Disch’s Motion to Dismiss was granted to the extent that the Amended Complaint was dismissed without prejudice to filing a Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. #51.) A Second Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claims Against Defendant Dawn Disch (Doc. #64) was filed on September 14, 2021. 2 Defendant M. Fields’ Motion to Sever and Transfer was denied on August 17, 2021. (Doc. #52.) A Motion for Partial Dismissal Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (Doc. #65) was filed on September 14, 2021, by the Littlestones, the Fields, and Alliant. (Alliant) filed a Response to Motion for Temporary Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction (Doc. #27) on July 19, 2021. With leave of Court, plaintiff filed a Reply in Support (Doc. #37) and

defendants filed a Sur-Reply in Opposition (Doc. #40). I. “The purpose of the preliminary injunction is to preserve the positions of the parties as best we can until a trial on the merits may be held.” Bloedorn v. Grube, 631 F.3d 1218, 1229 (11th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to be granted unless the movant clearly establishes ‘the burden of persuasion’ as to each of the four prerequisites.” Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (quoting All Care Nursing Serv., Inc. v. Bethesda Mem’l Hosp., Inc., 887 F.2d 1535, 1537 (11th Cir. 1989)) (citations omitted).

“A preliminary injunction is appropriate if the movant demonstrates all of these elements: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that the preliminary injunction is necessary to prevent irreparable injury; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs the harm the preliminary injunction would cause the other litigant; and (4) that the preliminary injunction would not be averse to the public interest. Chavez v. Fla. SP Warden, 742 F.3d 1267, 1271 (11th Cir. 2014) (citing Parker v. State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 275 F.3d 1032, 1034–35 (11th Cir. 2001)). A. Substantial Likelihood of Success “The standard for a preliminary injunction is essentially the same as for a permanent injunction with the exception that the

plaintiff must show a likelihood of success on the merits rather than actual success.” Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gambell, AK, 480 U.S. 531, 546 n.12 (1987). 1. Second Amended Complaint In the Second Amended Complaint, plaintiff describes the suit as a case for damages arising from the Defendants’ blatant solicitation of employees and customers in violation of several employment agreements, breach of fiduciary duties owed to Plaintiff while employed, and theft of Plaintiff’s trade secret information through which it provides insurance and benefits services to clients in Florida and elsewhere.” (Doc. #53, ¶ 1.) The alleges facts are as follows: In November 2009, E.

Littlestone began his employment with McGriff, and he entered into an Employee Agreement on November 2, 2009. McGriff changed its name in 2018 to BB&T Insurance Services. During his 11-year tenure, E. Littlestone worked as an insurance agent. The Employment Agreement was amended on January 1, 2011 and January 8, 2018, but the confidentiality and non-solicitation provisions remained intact. (Id., ¶¶ 18-20.) On April 21, 2008, Disch began her employment with Oswald, Trippe and Company, Inc. and on July 6, 2008, she executed an Employment Agreement. (Id., ¶ 23.) On November 2, 2009, the company was acquired, via merger, by OTCI Acquisition, LLC, which merged into BB&T Insurance Services, Inc. on that same day.

Disch’s Employment Agreement also contained restrictive covenants. Both E. Littlestone and Disch started working with Alliant, a direct competitor. (Id., ¶¶ 24-25, 27.) Alliant also solicited C. Littlestone, the son of E. Littlestone. The son does not have a written employment agreement with McGriff, and therefore E. Littlestone and Disch used him to indirectly solicit and take customers and employees from McGriff to Alliant. (Id., ¶ 30.) In June 2021, McGriff came into possession of information confirming that its clients were solicited by E. Littlestone and Disch. Plaintiff alleges that the solicitation is ongoing. (Id., ¶ 31.) In November 2009, D. Fields began his employment, and he

signed an Employee Agreement on November 2, 2009. For most of his employment, McGriff was known as BB&T Insurance Services until the name change in 2018. During his 11-year tenure, D. Fields worked as an insurance agent. (Id., ¶¶ 32-33.) On January 10, 2018, the D. Fields Agreement was amended but the confidentiality or non- solicitation provisions remained intact. (Id., ¶ 34.) M. Fields began with McGriff, also known as BB&T Insurance Services, in May 2012, at which time he entered into an Employee Agreement. (Id., ¶¶ 37, 38.) On January 11, 2018, the Employment Agreement was amended but not as to confidentiality or non-solicitation provisions. 39.) After departing McGriff, D. Fields and M. Fields began working for Alliant, and in June 2021, McGriff came

into information confirming that its clients were solicited by D. Fields and M. Fields. (Id., ¶¶ 43, 46.) In June 2021, McGriff came into possession of information that D. Fields texted an employee to solicit them to leave McGriff and join Alliant, and that D. Fields and M. Fields disclosed their departure to McGriff’s customers and clients weeks before informing McGriff to take their business to Alliant. (Id., ¶¶ 47, 48.) Count I alleges tortious interference with a breached contract against Alliant and Count V alleges tortious interference with an advantageous business relationship against E. Littlestone, C. Littlestone, Disch, D. Fields, M. Fields, and Alliant. Count VI and Count VII allege a breach of fiduciary duty against E.

Littlestone (Count VI) and D. Fields (Count VII). Count III alleges a misappropriation of trade secrets in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1836 and Count IV alleges a misappropriation of trade secrets under Florida law. Count XII seeks a declaratory judgment and Count XIII seeks injunctive relief. Plaintiff focuses on the breach by defendants subject to restrictive covenants in their Employment Agreements as the basis for the injunction. As relevant to the preliminary injunction, Count II alleges a breach of confidentiality provision in each of the employment agreements of E. Littlestone, Disch, D. Fields, and M. Fields. Count VIII alleges a breach of the non-solicitation provision of E.

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

McGriff Insurance Services, Inc. v. Littlestone, (M.D. Fla. 2021).

McGriff Insurance Services, Inc. v. Littlestone (McGriff Insurance Services, Inc. v. Littlestone) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McDonald's Corp. v. Robertson
147 F.3d 1301 (Eleventh Circuit, 1998)
Byron Ashley Parker v. The State Board of Pardons
275 F.3d 1032 (Eleventh Circuit, 2001)
Vega v. T-MOBILE USA, INC.
564 F.3d 1256 (Eleventh Circuit, 2009)
Proudfoot Consulting Co. v. Gordon
576 F.3d 1223 (Eleventh Circuit, 2009)
Amoco Production Co. v. Village of Gambell
480 U.S. 531 (Supreme Court, 1987)
Bloedorn v. Grube
631 F.3d 1218 (Eleventh Circuit, 2011)
Mazurek v. Armstrong
520 U.S. 968 (Supreme Court, 1997)
Capraro v. Lanier Business Products, Inc.
466 So. 2d 212 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1985)
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. v. Carter
9 So. 3d 1258 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)
Juan Chavez v. Florida SP Warden, etal
742 F.3d 1267 (Eleventh Circuit, 2014)