M  O  T  I  O  N  S     F  O  R     I  N  J  U  N  C  T  I  V  E     R  E  L  I  E  F  :
Some of the quarter's most interesting decisions involved motions for injunctive relief. These cases show that the Court considers the context carefully and the impact of the requested relief on the public. Regular litigants should also be aware of the track record they are creating.

Acordia Northeast, Inc. v. Academic Risk Resources & Insurance, LLC, 19
Mass. L. Rep. 75, 2005 Mass. Super. LEXIS 71   (January 4, 2005) (Botsford, J.).

Acordia Northeast, Inc. (“Acordia”) provided insurance brokerage services through its Higher Education Team (“Team”) to colleges and universities. On December 15, 2004, eleven of the thirteen employees on the Team left Acordia and joined a competing company, Academic Risk Resources & Insurance (“Academic Risk”). In alleged violation of non-disclosure and non-solicitation agreements, the eleven employees solicited and obtained the business of Acordia's clients. Acordia sought injunctive relief. Applying the

traditional analysis for awarding injunctive relief, the Court entered a temporary restraining order.

After the preliminary injunction hearing, the Court modified the order to permit the defendants to continue to service existing clients, even if those clients had previously been Acordia customers. It ordered, however, that fees for this work would be placed in an escrow account. Acordia Northeast, Inc. v. Academic Risk Resources & Insurance, LLC, 2005 Mass. Super. LEXIS 130 (January 13, 2005) (J. Nonnie S. Burnes).

Maletz v. Supulveda, 2005 Mass. Super. LEXIS 74
(March 4, 2005) (Van Gestel, J.).

In connection with an ugly dispute between two doctors in a medical partnership, one doctor announced to his patients that the two doctors would no longer “cross cover” each other's patients. The other doctor sought an injunction to “preserve the status quo.”

Morgan Stanley DW, Inc. v. Clayson, 2005 Mass. Super. LEXIS 145
(March 14, 2005) (Van Gestel, J.).

Defendant Robert A. Clayson was a financial advisor subject to non-compete and confidentiality agreements when he left his job with plaintiff Morgan Stanley DW, Inc. (MSDW) to join defendant Wachovia Securities, LLC (“Wachovia”). MSDW had previously obtained an injunction to prevent disclosure of its confidential information or loss of its customers. Although the Court had issued multiple orders in that regard, the defendants had failed to comply fully.

 The Court held Mr. Clayson and Wachovia in contempt, ordered them to disgorge the documents and pay MSDW's attorney's fees and costs in prosecuting the motion for contempt.

The Court's sympathy for MSDW, however, was limited. It noted that in 29 prior cases, MSDW had been the defend-ant in 6 of them. “The brokerage houses are the injured innocents when a broker leaves them for a competitor one week and the conspiring raider the next.”