Maizitis v. TUV America, Inc.
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
2014 WL 2921905 (2014)

- Written by Denise McGimsey, JD
Facts
Maizitis (plaintiff) was promoted to manager by TUV America, Inc. (TUV) (defendant). The parties signed an employment agreement that included a provision barring Maizitis from soliciting employees, vendors, or customers of TUV for a period of two years after his employment ended. On May 22, 2002, Maizitis’s employment was terminated. Maizitis alleged that his belief in the validity of the non-solicitation provision impacted his later employment. TUV never sought to enforce the provision, and it expired in May 2004. Maizitis filed an action against TUV in February 2005, seeking contract damages on the grounds that he had been compelled to enter into and comply with an agreement that was contrary to public policy. Maizitis did not allege any breach of the contract, nor did he present any tort claims or requests for equitable relief. TUV moved the trial court for summary judgment, which the court considered.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (O’Malley, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.