Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 16,500+ case briefs...

Product Action International, Inc. v. Mero

United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
277 F.Supp.2d 919 (2003)


Facts

Carl Mero (defendant) was a salesman for Product Action International, Inc. (PAI) (plaintiff). Mero’s role was to sell PAI’s automotive quality-control services. Mero was subject to a non-competition agreement, which was drafted by PAI. The agreement stated that, for a period of 24 months following termination of Mero’s employment, Mero would not engage with a competitive business in any way. A competitive business was defined as one that (1) did business or sought to do business with a PAI customer, (2) did business or sought to do business within a 100-mile radius of any facility where PAI did business, or (3) did business in the preceding 12 months in any state or country in which PAI did business or planned to do business. The agreement also stated that if any part of the agreement was considered by law to be too broad, the agreement would be enforced to the maximum extent possible. PAI provided Mero with one week of sales training, during which he was taught how to sell PAI’s products. Mero later became employed as a salesman by Quality Industrial Services (QIS). Like PAI, QIS performed quality control and quality insurance inspections for the automotive industry. QIS thus qualified as a competitive business under the non-competition agreement. Mero’s office at QIS was located approximately 20 miles from his former office at PAI. While working for QIS, Mero contacted several businesses that did business with PAI. Mero obtained business for QIS from customers he had while at PAI. PAI brought suit to enforce the non-competition agreement. PAI suggested edits to the agreement to bring the agreement within the scope allowed by law. PAI also argued that the agreement could be rewritten by the court to bring it into compliance. The case was heard in federal court.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Hamilton, 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 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read 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. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 409,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,500 briefs, keyed to 223 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.

Questions & Answers


Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial