Morgan Stanley DW, Inc. v. Frisby

163 F. Supp. 2d 1371 (2001)

Study Aids
Case Briefs Overview
Casebooks
Case Briefs
M
From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Morgan Stanley DW, Inc. v. Frisby

United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
163 F. Supp. 2d 1371 (2001)

  • Written by Tammy Boggs, JD

Facts

Spencer Frisby and Patrick Lovell (defendants) worked as brokers for Morgan Stanley (plaintiff), which sold securities, mutual funds, and other financial products. Brokers earned sales commissions. Frisby and Lovell’s employment agreements included a non-solicitation clause providing that, for one year after ending their employment with Morgan Stanley, the brokers could not solicit clients they had serviced or learned about while employed with Morgan Stanley within a 100-mile radius. In August 2001, Frisby and Lovell simultaneously resigned to begin employment at a competing brokerage firm, PaineWebber. In the few days after their resignation, Frisby and Lovell allegedly solicited clients with whom they had done business while employed at Morgan Stanley, and certain clients decided to transfer their brokerage accounts to PaineWebber. Morgan Stanley initiated arbitration against Frisby and Lovell alleging a violation of the brokers’ non-solicitation agreements. In district court, Morgan Stanley requested a temporary restraining order (TRO) to stop Frisby and Lovell’s solicitation-related conduct until the dispute could be arbitrated.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Thrash, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 811,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 811,000 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership

Casebooks

Remedies

Key Terms