Cloutier

John F. Matull & Associates, Inc. v. Cloutier

Good Law
194 Cal. App. 3d 1049·1987 Cal. App. LEXIS 2120·240 Cal. Rptr. 211·2 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1731
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 16, 1987B022357California2,504 words

Opinion

Opinion

Feinerman, J.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s granting of a preliminary injunction. Appellant contends that the terms of the court’s injunction were overly vague, impermissibly intruded upon her practice of law and were based on an unenforceable covenant not to compete.

Background

Appellant, Carol J. Cloutier (Cloutier), is an attorney who practices labor law. Respondent is engaged in the business of labor relations consulting and was incorporated for that purpose in 1984. Cloutier joined that corporation as an officer and one-third shareholder. Prior to this time, Cloutier had performed labor relations consulting work through the firm of Gund and Gund, Inc. (Gund) and served a number of clients on behalf of Gund.

After respondent John F. Matull & Associates (Matull & Assoc.) incorporated, Gund sold respondent all of its accounts and retained respondent as an independent consultant to service its existing and new accounts. The purchase and consulting agreement which Gund (Seller) entered into with respondent Matull & Assoc. (Buyer) contained a buyer’s covenant, whose terms read as follows: “Buyer and its officers, directors and shareholders, jointly and severally, hereby…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.