Peopleshare v. Vickery, K.

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedMay 18, 2021
Docket476 EDA 2020
StatusUnpublished

This text of Peopleshare v. Vickery, K. (Peopleshare v. Vickery, K.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Peopleshare v. Vickery, K., (Pa. Ct. App. 2021).

Opinion

J-A01009-21

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

PEOPLESHARE, LLC : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : KEN VICKERY AND BEACON HILL : STAFFING GROUP, LLC : : No. 476 EDA 2020 Appellants :

Appeal from the Order Entered December 30, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Civil Division at No(s): No. 2019-15863

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OLSON, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED MAY 18, 2021

Ken Vickery (“Mr. Vickery”) and Beacon Hill Staffing Group, LLC

(“Beacon Hill”) (collectively “Appellants”) appeal from the December 30, 2019

order granting the motion for a preliminary injunction filed by PeopleShare,

LLC (“PeopleShare”). Upon review, we are constrained to dismiss this appeal

as moot.

This action was commenced by PeopleShare in June of 2019, with the

filing of a complaint seeking damages and injunctive relief for actions of the

employee, Mr. Vickery, and his new employer, Beacon Hill, taken before and

after Mr. Vickery switched jobs, “to compete against PeopleShare for its clients

and employees and [to] use its confidential information in violation of

restrictive covenants [Mr.] Vickery had entered into with PeopleShare in ____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-A01009-21

coming to work for it.” Trial Court Opinion (“TCO”), 8/14/20, at 1. Along with

the complaint, PeopleShare filed a motion for preliminary injunction, pursuant

to Pa.R.C.P. 1531. Id. at 1-2. Appellants filed an answer and new matter to

the complaint, and a hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction was

scheduled for October 11, 2019. Id. at 2-3. After the first day of hearing,

the trial court scheduled the proceeding for an additional half-day on October

23, 2019, at which time further testimony was heard. Id. at 5.

The trial court provided:

The evidence in totality depicted a scenario in which [Mr.] Vickery, who had no experience in the field of temporary staffing, had come to work for PeopleShare as a branch manager[,] in early 2015. Although PeopleShare had sent him a package of contractual documents with parameters of the job and terms of the agreement in advance of starting work, these documents did not set forth, among other things, the specific formula for calculating [the] commissions and bonuses [Mr.] Vickery was to receive. According to PeopleShare’s witnesses (its principal and a hiring manager), regular practice was to send such a package of documents to a prospective employee[,] along with restrictive covenants of noncompetition, nonsolicitation, and confidentiality, and there was evidence they were sent to [Mr.] Vickery, though he claimed he did not receive them. In any event, he signed the restrictive covenants upon commencing work at the firm,[1] and during his time there[,] he presented similar packages containing the restrictive covenants to other prospective employees in whose hiring he was involved.

After about four years on the job, [Mr.] Vickery left PeopleShare’s employ in dissatisfaction over commissions and bonuses, or the lack thereof. He immediately went to work for Beacon Hill, a ____________________________________________

1 The record reflects that Mr. Vickery executed an employment restrictive covenant agreement with PeopleShare, which contained both confidentiality and noncompete provisions, on January 19, 2015 (hereinafter “Restrictive Covenant”). See Complaint, 6/19/19, at Exhibit A (Restrictive Covenant).

-2- J-A01009-21

competing firm in the temporary-staffing business, in derogation of the one-year and fifty-mile prohibitions of the restrictive covenants[] and[,] in doing so[,] provided Beacon Hill with information on clientele from PeopleShare’s records, which he uploaded onto Beacon Hill’s computer system, as well as soliciting and providing a reference from a PeopleShare client to obtain the Beacon Hill job. The parties differed about many of the details of [Mr.] Vickery’s hiring at PeopleShare, what he did while there, and his leaving the firm to go to Beacon Hill[.] … [O]n the whole[,] the [c]ourt found itself tending to believe the testimony of PeopleShare’s witnesses and finding [Mr.] Vickery’s [testimony] not as credible[,] or even evasive on key issues.

Id. at 5-6.

On December 30, 2019, after deliberating on the evidence presented at

the hearing and the parties’ court-ordered, post-hearing briefs, the trial court

granted PeopleShare’s motion for a preliminary injunction. See Order,

12/13/19, at 1-2. The order expressly prohibited Mr. Vickery from “contacting

(directly or indirectly) any entity or person with whom he had contact on

behalf of [PeopleShare], while employed by [PeopleShare],” and from

“competing with [PeopleShare] within fifty miles of [PeopleShare’s] offices”

for a period of one year from the entry of the order. Id. at 1 ¶¶ 1-2. The

order further prohibited Beacon Hill from assisting Mr. Vickery in soliciting

PeopleShare’s clients for a period of one year from the date of its entry on the

docket. Id. at ¶3.2

____________________________________________

2 “This order will be effective upon the posting of bond of $500 by [PeopleShare].” Id. at 2 ¶6. We glean from the record that the required bond was paid on December 31, 2019.

-3- J-A01009-21

On January 22, 2020, Appellants filed a motion for reconsideration of

the December 30, 2019 order. Appellants subsequently filed a timely notice

of appeal on January 29, 2020, while the motion for reconsideration was still

pending.3 The trial court did not direct Appellants to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)

concise statement of matters complained of on appeal.

Herein, Appellants present the following issues for our review:

I. Whether this Court can properly consider Appellants’ appeal when Appellants properly followed the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure to timely appeal the trial court’s order, including timely providing notice to the trial court based on information available and ordering the requisite testimony transcripts of the preliminary injunction hearing?

II. Did the trial court abuse[] its discretion by finding [PeopleShare] was likely to prevail on the merits when … [the] Restrictive Covenant clearly lacked additional consideration to be enforceable?

III. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by issuing an overbroad order in geographic and temporal scope of the Restrictive Covenant by prohibiting [Mr.] Vickery from working within fifty miles of all [PeopleShare’s] offices and by prohibiting [Mr.] Vickery from providing placement services different than the services offered by [PeopleShare]?

IV. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by expanding the scope of the Restrictive Covenant to include a larger ____________________________________________

3 We observe that the mere filing of a motion for reconsideration is insufficient to toll the 30-day appeal period triggered by the entry of an appealable order. See Valley Forge Center Associates v. Rib-It/K.P., Inc., 693 A.2d 242, 245 (Pa. Super. 1997). Hence, “although a party may petition the court for reconsideration, the simultaneous filing of a notice of appeal is necessary to preserve appellate rights in the event that either the trial court fails to grant the petition expressly within 30 days, or it denies the petition.” Id. (citing Pa.R.A.P. 1701, Note). Instantly, the docket reflects that no ruling was made by the trial court on Appellants’ motion for reconsideration.

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

Related

Meadows v. Goodman
993 A.2d 912 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2010)
CASSELBURY v. American Food Service
30 A.3d 510 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2011)
Commonwealth v. Buehl
462 A.2d 1316 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1983)
Valley Forge Center Associates v. Rib-It/K.P., Inc.
693 A.2d 242 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1997)
In the Interest of R.D.
44 A.3d 657 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2012)
Orfield v. Weindel
52 A.3d 275 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2012)
Commonwealth v. Williams
106 A.3d 583 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2014)
Lico, Inc. v. Dougal, A. v. Lichtenstein, S.
2019 Pa. Super. 238 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2019)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Peopleshare v. Vickery, K., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peopleshare-v-vickery-k-pasuperct-2021.