Victaulic Co v. Tieman

Opinion

Opinions of the United

2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

11-20-2007

Victaulic Co v. Tieman Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 07-2088

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007

Recommended Citation "Victaulic Co v. Tieman" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 156. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/156

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 07-2088

VICTAULIC COMPANY,

v.

JOSEPH L. TIEMAN; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP

(E.D.P.A. Civil No. 06-cv-05601)

JOSEPH L. TIEMAN; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP

v.

VICTAULIC COMPANY

(E.D.P.A. Civil No. 07-cv-00512)

Victaulic Company,

Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 07-cv-00512) District Judge: Honorable Stewart Dalzell

Argued July 11, 2007

Before: RENDELL, AMBRO and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed August 23, 2007)

Oldrich Foucek, III, Esquire (Argued) Kelly M. Smith, Esquire Tallman, Hudders & Sorrentino 1611 Pond Road The Paragon Centre, Suite 300 Allentown, PA 18104

Counsel for Appellant

Stephen G. Harvey, Esquire Cara M. Kearney, Esquire Pepper Hamilton 18th & Arch Streets 3000 Two Logan Square Philadelphia, PA 19103

Edward L. Friedman, Esquire (Argued) Scott K. Davidson, Esquire Christopher Dove, Esquire Locke, Liddell & Sapp 600 Travis Street 3400 JP Morgan Chase Tower Houston, TX 77002

Counsel for Appellees

ORDER AMENDING PRECEDENTIAL OPINION

AMBRO, Circuit Judge

It is now ordered that the published Opinion in the above case filed August 23, 2007, be further amended as follows:

On page 10, first paragraph, line 5, change “argues” to “argue” so that the sentence reads:

Tyco and Tieman argue that Victaulic asked for a preliminary injunction on the basis of all of its claims, including the trade secrets claim that has not

3

been dismissed.

On page 11, line 8, change “App. at A71” to “id. at A71” so that the sentence reads:

This language is all but lifted from the covenant not to compete, see id. at A71, which supports Victaulic’s claim that enforcement of the covenant (and not preliminary relief on the trade secrets claim) was its only aim in seeking preliminary injunctive relief.

On page 24, in the first line of footnote 7, add “the” before “District Court” so that the sentence reads:

In the alternative, Victaulic argues that the District Court should have attempted to “blue pencil” (i.e., amend) the covenant to make it reasonable.

By the Court,

/s/ Thomas L. Ambro, Circuit Judge

Dated: November 20, 2007