My question involves court procedures for the state of: NJ
I had a Court Order that was enforced on me and it was 1 yr non-solicitation from 9/7/2017 - 9/7/2018 on me on a exhibited List attached to the Court Order a snippet of the Settlement Agreement states the following;
Defendant agrees that neither he nor any individual or entity acting at his direction or on his behalf will solicit, contact, or engage in business transactions of any kind with the individuals, entities, and/or businesses listed at EXHIBIT A.
- Fact: There is no geography or any form of specifying identifiers just business names and or abbreviated names. No addresses, phone numbers or point of contacts enlisted.
A complaint was launched alleging a violation of the Order, by me transacting with a identified business in the exhibited list of the Order.
Issue: A name on the list is ABC Manufacturing and this business was restricted. However, ABC was purchased by a competitor before Order was granted. ABC is now owned by a large public traded corp. company and now called XYZ Manufacturing.
The acquiring company decided to remain the location as is, the acquirer generated/changed the LLC name, restructured the LLC to be managed by the acquirer’s corp counselors and changed almost everything. There is no successorship in the Order at all, therefore I was legally allowed to transact with the identified business after he contacted me. The Plaintiff is stating that facility [even though its not mentioned in the Order], still has the same business services and is at the same location, therefore its unchanged. The judge pushed for limited discovery and a preliminary hearing is set after oral arguments were made.
They are using the buyer at that company at the hearing to verbalize he was still in charge of the same tasks even after the acquisition. The Plaintiff/Judge narrowed down the discovery to “ Is XYZ Manufacturing one in the same as ABC Manufacturing ? “ But, I just don’t get it, why is the Judge allowing this when there is no successor-ship at all, so even if it is found the same became of a guy’s testimony articulates they still do the same business operations? Can I still file a brief procedurally or what can I do at this point to further prevent legal cost on my end or avoid wasting further time? I was told the Judge said if the Plaintiff withdraws his amended relief, no briefing will be allowed, and he did. But, what can I do? Can the Judge ignore the legal distinction or impose a favorable successorship language that doesn't exist and ignore State/Contract law? A preliminary hearing was set and limited discovery is due by Oct 31 and the Plaintiff has no evidence or no supporting documents besides a buyer's testimony to say he does the same operations after the acquisition.
I had a Court Order that was enforced on me and it was 1 yr non-solicitation from 9/7/2017 - 9/7/2018 on me on a exhibited List attached to the Court Order a snippet of the Settlement Agreement states the following;
Defendant agrees that neither he nor any individual or entity acting at his direction or on his behalf will solicit, contact, or engage in business transactions of any kind with the individuals, entities, and/or businesses listed at EXHIBIT A.
- Fact: There is no geography or any form of specifying identifiers just business names and or abbreviated names. No addresses, phone numbers or point of contacts enlisted.
A complaint was launched alleging a violation of the Order, by me transacting with a identified business in the exhibited list of the Order.
Issue: A name on the list is ABC Manufacturing and this business was restricted. However, ABC was purchased by a competitor before Order was granted. ABC is now owned by a large public traded corp. company and now called XYZ Manufacturing.
The acquiring company decided to remain the location as is, the acquirer generated/changed the LLC name, restructured the LLC to be managed by the acquirer’s corp counselors and changed almost everything. There is no successorship in the Order at all, therefore I was legally allowed to transact with the identified business after he contacted me. The Plaintiff is stating that facility [even though its not mentioned in the Order], still has the same business services and is at the same location, therefore its unchanged. The judge pushed for limited discovery and a preliminary hearing is set after oral arguments were made.
They are using the buyer at that company at the hearing to verbalize he was still in charge of the same tasks even after the acquisition. The Plaintiff/Judge narrowed down the discovery to “ Is XYZ Manufacturing one in the same as ABC Manufacturing ? “ But, I just don’t get it, why is the Judge allowing this when there is no successor-ship at all, so even if it is found the same became of a guy’s testimony articulates they still do the same business operations? Can I still file a brief procedurally or what can I do at this point to further prevent legal cost on my end or avoid wasting further time? I was told the Judge said if the Plaintiff withdraws his amended relief, no briefing will be allowed, and he did. But, what can I do? Can the Judge ignore the legal distinction or impose a favorable successorship language that doesn't exist and ignore State/Contract law? A preliminary hearing was set and limited discovery is due by Oct 31 and the Plaintiff has no evidence or no supporting documents besides a buyer's testimony to say he does the same operations after the acquisition.
Motions: What Can I Do Now
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire