Extracorporeal Alliance, L.L.C. v. Rosteck ( 2004 )

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 04a0014n.06
Filed: October 6, 2004
03-4211
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
THE EXTRACORPOREAL ALLIANCE, )
L.L.C., )
)
Plaintiff-Appellant, )
)
v. ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MICHAEL ROSTECK, et al., ) NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
)
Defendants-Appellees. )
Before: KENNEDY, DAUGHTREY, and COOK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. The plaintiff, The Extracorporeal Alliance, L.L.C. (Alliance), appeals
the district court's denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction against defendants
Michael Rosteck and his company, Advanced Perfusion, L.L.C. Had it issued, the
injunction would have prevented Advanced Perfusion from doing business with the St.
Elizabeth Hospital Medical Center in Youngstown, Ohio. The plaintiff alleges that in signing
an agreement to provide services to the hospital, Rosteck breached a written non-compete
agreement he had entered into with the Alliance’s predecessor company, that he breached
a confidentiality agreement with Alliance, that he misappropriated Alliance’s trade secrets,
that he breached his duty of loyalty and his fiduciary duty to Alliance, and that he tortiously
interfered with Alliance’s contract and business relationships. The district court reviewed
03-4211
the motion under the well-established four-prong test of Frisch’s Restaurant, Inc. v.
Shoney’s Inc., 759 F.2d 1261, 1263 (6th Cir. 1985), and denied the plaintiff's motion after
determining that Alliance had failed to establish that an injunction was appropriate.
Specifically, the district court found that Alliance was likely to succeed on only one
of the claims set out in the complaint, i.e., the alleged breach of loyalty. The district court
also determined that Alliance would not be harmed in the absence of injunctive relief
because any injury suffered by Alliance could be fully compensated by monetary damages.
The court further held that although the public interest factor did not weigh in favor of either
party, both the defendant and the hospital would suffer substantial injury if the wide-ranging
injunctive relief requested by Alliance was granted.
Having had the benefit of oral argument, and having studied the record on appeal
and the briefs of the parties, we cannot say with any certainty that the district court was
completely correct in its assessment of the plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits.
However, our function on appeal is limited to a review of the court’s order for abuse of
discretion, and when the district judge’s determination is measured by that standard, we
cannot conclude that the district court erred in denying the request for a preliminary
injunction. Because the analysis to support this decision has been carefully and fully
articulated by the district court, the issuance of a detailed opinion by this court would be
duplicative and would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of
-2-
03-4211
the district court upon the reasoning set out by that court in its memorandum opinion and
order entered on September 5, 2003.
-3-