Matthew3223533
New Member
- Jurisdiction
- New Jersey
My question involves business law in the state of: New Jersey
Former employer ( I was a indep. contractor) filed a complaint in court alleging violating a NDA or soliciting their customers. Judge rejected their motion to enforce immediate injunction relief and requested for expedited discovery.
Argument was: Plaintiff has no customers, as Plaintiff is a re-seller and provides agreements from their vendors to end user. This have zero contractual agreements or titles with the end user.
Mid way, through the discovery..it was decided to settle as I can no longer afford legal fees and the time. I was agreeing to prevent myself from a fair competition by agreeing to settle on a bunch of leads (business names) that the Plaintiff has no ownership or contractual relationship.
Courts/Judges are still under the impress they have *customers* when they don't. Anyway, after exchanging the lead list. They provided no geographic location, no locations, no phone numbers or point of contacts just list of abbreviated names of businesses and some with LLC names. With my lead list, I provided everything there is with no restriction upon them.
After negotiating and trying to revise their Non-Solicitation agreement, they filed a motion to enforce it and the courts enforced it.
I later realized I could've appealed it but I was pro se. Fast forward a few months, a motion to Litigants Right was filed.
A company name in their ambiguous lead list, (which they are still wording it as a customer)..this company on this list actually was acquired by a large corporation and that business that is on the list changed its name. from ABC Company to XYZ Services.
They are interlinking that just because there was a name change its still violating the Court Order.
My response is, I have not violated the court order because that name is not on the list. Their list has no geographic nature, no service locations and no merger clauses in their settlement agreement.
Plantiff, is also stating that same buyer at this company is the same person I transacted with, which is true.
Is my response a adequate argument, what does everything think of this? Can I also find a way to challenge this court order also or argue my current motion?
Former employer ( I was a indep. contractor) filed a complaint in court alleging violating a NDA or soliciting their customers. Judge rejected their motion to enforce immediate injunction relief and requested for expedited discovery.
Argument was: Plaintiff has no customers, as Plaintiff is a re-seller and provides agreements from their vendors to end user. This have zero contractual agreements or titles with the end user.
Mid way, through the discovery..it was decided to settle as I can no longer afford legal fees and the time. I was agreeing to prevent myself from a fair competition by agreeing to settle on a bunch of leads (business names) that the Plaintiff has no ownership or contractual relationship.
Courts/Judges are still under the impress they have *customers* when they don't. Anyway, after exchanging the lead list. They provided no geographic location, no locations, no phone numbers or point of contacts just list of abbreviated names of businesses and some with LLC names. With my lead list, I provided everything there is with no restriction upon them.
After negotiating and trying to revise their Non-Solicitation agreement, they filed a motion to enforce it and the courts enforced it.
I later realized I could've appealed it but I was pro se. Fast forward a few months, a motion to Litigants Right was filed.
A company name in their ambiguous lead list, (which they are still wording it as a customer)..this company on this list actually was acquired by a large corporation and that business that is on the list changed its name. from ABC Company to XYZ Services.
They are interlinking that just because there was a name change its still violating the Court Order.
My response is, I have not violated the court order because that name is not on the list. Their list has no geographic nature, no service locations and no merger clauses in their settlement agreement.
Plantiff, is also stating that same buyer at this company is the same person I transacted with, which is true.
Is my response a adequate argument, what does everything think of this? Can I also find a way to challenge this court order also or argue my current motion?
