Summary
finding that, on motion for preliminary injunction, an employer has a legitimate business interest in protecting its "investment of time and money in developing [an employee's] skills, as well as in protecting its client relationships, goodwill, and confidential and trade secret information from unfair competition."
Summary of this case from Gallagher Benefit Servs. v. CampbellOpinion
Case No. 1:19-CV-05327-SDG
2020-03-05
HEARTLAND PAYMENT SYSTEMS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Phillip Kord STOCKWELL, Defendant.
Michael David Kabat, Nathan David Chapman, Abigail Stecker Romero, Kabat Chapman & Ozmer, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff. Amanda S. Thompson, Salter Thompson Law, P.C., Atlanta, GA, Ryan S. Wilson, Hartzog Conger Cason & Neville, Oklahoma City, OK, for Defendant.
Michael David Kabat, Nathan David Chapman, Abigail Stecker Romero, Kabat Chapman & Ozmer, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff.
Amanda S. Thompson, Salter Thompson Law, P.C., Atlanta, GA, Ryan S. Wilson, Hartzog Conger Cason & Neville, Oklahoma City, OK, for Defendant.
PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND FINAL JUDGMENT
STEVEN D. GRIMBERG, United States District Court Judge
This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff Heartland Payment Systems, LLC's ("HPS") and Defendant Phillip Kord Stockwell ("Stockwell," and collectively with HPS, the "Parties") Joint Motion for Entry of Permanent Injunction and Final Judgment ("Motion"). (D.E. 29.) The Court hereby GRANTS the Motion and enters the following Permanent Injunction and Final Judgment.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 21, 2019, HPS filed a complaint against Stockwell in the Superior Court of Fulton County, State of Georgia, Case No. 2019CV328268 ("Complaint"). (D.E. 1-1.) In the Complaint, HPS brought claims against Stockwell for: (1) breach of contract arising from the employment agreement; (2) breach of contract arising from a related stock award; (3) injunctive relief; and (4) attorneys' fees. (Id. ) HPS effected service of process of the Complaint and the Fulton County Superior Court summons on Stockwell at his home in Edmond, Oklahoma on October 24, 2019. (D.E. 1-2.)
On October 29, 2019, HPS filed an Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Interlocutory Injunctive Relief and Expedited Discovery (the "Emergency Motion") in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, which set a hearing on the Motion for November 27, 2019. (D.E. 1-3–D.E. 1-8; D.E. 1-10.)
On November 22, 2019, Stockwell removed this action from the Fulton County Superior Court to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (D.E. 1.) On November 29, 2019, Stockwell answered the Complaint and filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion. (D.E. 5, D.E. 6.)
On December 2, 2019, the Court held a hearing on and granted HPS' Emergency Motion. (D.E. 9.) After HPS posted a $50,000 bond, the Court entered a preliminary injunction in HPS' favor (the "Preliminary Injunction Order"). (D.E. 11, D.E. 12.) The Parties subsequently filed the instant Motion, requesting the Court convert the Preliminary Injunction Order into a permanent injunction and final judgment. (D.E. 29.)
II. FINDINGS OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
A. The Parties and the Payment-Processing Industry
HPS is a Georgia-based provider of payment-processing technology services and products throughout the United States, including, as pertinent to the Motion, in Oklahoma and Texas. (D.E. 2-2 – Affidavit of T.J. Kerr ("Kerr Aff.") ¶ 3.) HPS provides merchants with electronic credit-and debit-processing services, and leases and/or sells point-of-sale terminals and processing-related products to effectuate those services. (Id. ¶ 4.) The payment-processing industry is extremely competitive, with competitors fighting to secure contracts from the exact same clients. (Id. ¶ 5.) HPS has established that it values and takes pains to protect its relationships with its employees, its relationships and goodwill with its clients, and its confidential, proprietary, and sensitive business information, such as its pricing models, market analyses, client lists, client activity records, sales strategies, employee commission plans, and related records and information vital to its operations ("Confidential Information"). (Id. ¶ 6.) HPS requires its employees with knowledge of or access to its Confidential Information to enter into restrictive covenants (such as non-compete and non-solicitation agreements) as a condition of their employment. (Id. ¶ 7.)
HPS is a Delaware limited liability company organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. (See D.E. 1-1 ¶ 6; D.E. 5 ¶ 6.) HPS' sole member is Global Payments Inc., a Georgia corporation with its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. (Id. )
B. Stockwell's Employment with HPS and the Parties' Sales Manager Agreement.
Stockwell is a citizen of Oklahoma (D.E. 1-1 ¶ 7; D.E. 5 ¶ 7.) HPS hired Stockwell as a Division Manager of Sales on March 5, 2018. (Kerr Aff. ¶ 8.) On January 7, 2019, HPS promoted Stockwell to the position of Vice President of Sales and increased his salary to well over six figures. (Id. ¶ 9.) In both positions—but particularly as a high-ranking Vice President—Stockwell was a business leader who, among other duties, built a team of 50 to 75 HPS employees, who he managed and supervised (and thus hired and fired), and who, in turn, solicited clients and prospective clients in, inter alia , Oklahoma and Texas for the purpose of selling HPS' products and services. (Id. ¶¶ 10, 29.) To satisfy the aforementioned sales and management requirements of his position, Stockwell had access to and knowledge of HPS' Confidential Information, including (but not limited to) the details of HPS' relationships and interactions with clients and prospective clients, the terms of their contracts and volume of their business, HPS' pricing models, sales and marketing analyses, business and strategic plans, product development, employee retention strategies, and employee commission structures. (Id. ¶ 12.)
To protect HPS' Confidential Information, and as a condition of his employment, Stockwell and HPS entered into a Sales Manager Employee Agreement (the "Agreement") that contained various restrictive covenants designed to protect HPS' legitimate business interests. (See id. ¶ 13, Ex. 1 ("Agmt.") at 1 (stating HPS desired to employ Stockwell to "manage and supervise its employees who customarily and regularly solicit customers and prospective customers for the purpose of selling HPS' products and services" and Stockwell's desire to "accept such employment").)
The Agreement included a non-competition covenant prohibiting Stockwell from working for a competitor in the same geographic area for 12 months post-termination:
During the term of Employee's employment and for a period of twelve (12) months immediately following the termination of Employee's employment for any reason, Employee shall not ... obtain any employment ... with a Competitor ... in the geographic area in which the Company conducts business , in which Employee has duties for (or provides services to) such Competitor that relate to Competitive Services and are the same or similar to those services actually performed by Employee for the Company ...
(Agmt. ¶ 11 (emphasis added).) The Agreement defined a "Competitor" as any "entity or enterprise which is planning to engage, preparing to engage, or is engaged, wholly or in part, in Competitive Services." (Agmt. ¶ 11(b).) The Agreement in turn defined "Competitive Services" as "services competitive with the business activities engaged in by the Company as of the date of termination of Employee's employment ... which include, but are not limited to ... the provision of products and services to facilitate or assist with the movement in electronic commerce of payment and financial information, [and] merchant processing[.]" (Agmt. ¶ 11(a).)
The Agreement also contained a non-solicitation of employees covenant prohibiting Stockwell from soliciting, recruiting, enticing, inducing, or hiring HPS' employees for 24 months following his termination:
During the period of Employee's employment by HPS and for a period of twenty-four (24) months after termination for any reason, Employee will not directly or indirectly solicit , recruit, entice, induce, or hire any employee of HPS to work for a third party other than HPS or engage in any activity that would cause any HPS employee to terminate his or her employment with HPS or violate any agreement he or she may have with HPS.
(Agmt. ¶ 10 (emphasis added).)
The Agreement also required Stockwell to "notify HPS in writing of each subsequent employer during the course of the restricted time periods ... including the name of the employer, the address of the employer and the job title and duties being performed by Employee for the subsequent employer." (Agmt. ¶ 12.)
Stockwell also acknowledged and agreed that, "due to the nature of HPS' business," the aforementioned restrictive covenants:
(a) [were] essential for the reasonable, proper, and adequate protection of HPS's business, its goodwill and its trade secrets, proprietary data and confidential information , irrespective of whether such goodwill and assets may be protectable in the jurisdiction of Employee's country or state of domicile; (b) [were] reasonable with respect to length of time, scope and geographic area ; and (c) [would] not prohibit Employee from engaging in other businesses or employment for the purpose of earning a livelihood following the termination of his/her relationship with HPS.
(Agmt. ¶ 12 (emphasis added).) Stockwell further acknowledged and agreed that his "breach of [the restrictive covenants] of this Agreement will cause immediate, irreparable and continuing damage to HPS for which there is no adequate remedy at law " and that in the event of breach or violation of the covenants, HPS would be " entitled to temporary, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and restraints enjoining and restraining such breach or violation or threatened breach or violation[.]" (Agmt. ¶ 13 (emphasis added).)
Stockwell agreed to nearly identical non-competition and employee non-solicitation covenants when he accepted a Restricted Stock Award Certificate and the accompanying terms and conditions of issuance. (Kerr Aff. ¶ 21, Ex. 2 ("Stock Award").)
On July 1, 2019, HPS terminated Stockwell's employment. (Id. ¶ 22.) At that time, HPS sent Stockwell a letter reminding him of the non-compete and non-solicitation covenants (among others) in the Agreement. (Id. ¶ 23, Ex. 3.)
C. Stockwell's New Employment with Clearent and Hiring of Brian Werkman
Shortly after Stockwell's employment with HPS ended, he secured a position with Clearent, another credit card processing company that is one of HPS' direct competitors in the payment processing industry. (Kerr Aff. ¶¶ 24–25; D.E. 6-1 – Declaration of Phillip Kord Stockwell ("Stockwell Decl.") ¶ 11.) Clearent, like HPS, is a payment-processing company that provides merchants with electronic credit-and debit-processing services, and leases or sells point-of-sale terminals and processing-related products. (Kerr Aff. ¶ 26, Ex. 4 (offering "payment solutions" that help "businesses securely accept payments," "point of sale system[s]," as well as "card reader" terminals).) Clearent's website states: "[a]t our core, we're a credit card processing company." (Id. ¶ 27, Ex. 5.)
Stockwell's Declaration states that his job title at Clearent is Regional Sales director, and his job duties include sales and management. (Stockwell Decl. ¶ 11.) Stockwell also stated in an August 7, 2019 Facebook post, in relevant part, that he had been chosen by Clearent to "to build a team of world class payments professionals in Oklahoma and a big part of Texas." (Kerr Aff. ¶ 30, Ex. 9.) As of the date of the Court's Preliminary Injunction Order, Stockwell was performing these duties for Clearent, which are substantially the same as those he performed for HPS, in Oklahoma and Texas, the same geographic area in which he worked for HPS. (Kerr Aff. ¶ 29, Exs. 8–9.) Further, as part of Stockwell's job duties for Clearent, he was responsible for approving (and did approve) the hiring of at least one HPS employee, Brian Werkman. (D.E. 6-3 – Declaration of Dominie Sabatino-Donat ("Sabatino-Donat Decl.") ¶ 6.) Stockwell also spoke with Werkman after Clearent offered him employment regarding working for Clearent before Werkman resigned from HPS. (Werkman Decl. ¶ 5.)
III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. Jurisdiction and Venue
Stockwell removed this action from the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) because Stockwell (an Oklahoma citizen) and HPS (a Georgia citizen) are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy between them exceeds the sum of $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs. (See D.E. 1.) Further, the Court has personal jurisdiction over Stockwell pursuant to the exclusive forum selection provisions of his Agreement with HPS. (Kerr Aff. Ex. 1 ¶ 18.) For the same reasons, venue is proper in this Court.
B. Applicable Substantive Law
As a federal court sitting in diversity, this Court must apply the substantive law of the state in which it sits, including the forum state's choice-of-law rules. Whitaker v. Harvell-Kilgore , 418 F.2d 1010, 1015 (5th Cir. 1969). In this case, the Agreement between Stockwell and HPS, a Georgia citizen, contained a choice-of-law provision selecting Georgia law as the substantive law that would govern the parties' disputes. (Agmt. ¶ 18.) Under Georgia law, "[t]he law of the jurisdiction chosen by parties to a contract to govern their contractual rights will not be applied by Georgia courts where application of the chosen law would contravene the policy of, or would be prejudicial to the interests of [Georgia]." Convergys Corp. v. Keener , 276 Ga. 808, 810, 812, 582 S.E.2d 84 (2003) (holding, upon certified question from the Eleventh Circuit, that Georgia does not follow Section 187(2) of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws) (quotations omitted).
Georgia law applies to this dispute. See id. ; Keener v. Convergys Corp. , 342 F.3d 1264, 1267 (11th Cir. 2003) (acknowledging the Georgia Supreme Court's answer to certified question in Keener , 276 Ga. at 810–12, 582 S.E.2d 84 ).
C. Permanent Injunction Standard
A district court has broad discretion to grant permanent injunctive relief if the movant shows the following: "(1) that he has prevailed in establishing the violation of the right asserted in his complaint; (2) there is no adequate remedy at law for the violation of this right; (3) irreparable harm will result if the court does not order injunctive relief; and (4) if issued, the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest." Thomas v. Bryant , 614 F.3d 1288, 1318 (11th Cir. 2010) ; see also Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gambell , 480 U.S. 531, 546 n. 12, 107 S.Ct. 1396, 94 L.Ed.2d 542 (1987) ("[S]tandard for a preliminary injunction is essentially the same as for a permanent injunction with the exception that the plaintiff must show a likelihood of success on the merits rather than actual success."). In this case, HPS has clearly established its burden as to each of the requirements necessary for the entry of a permanent injunction against Stockwell.
D. HPS Has Succeeded on the Merits
To succeed on the merits of its breach of contract claim against Stockwell, HPS must show that Stockwell entered into the Agreement and breached the Agreement, resulting in damages to HPS. See Dewrell Sacks, LLP v. Chicago Title Ins. Co. , 324 Ga. App. 219, 220, 749 S.E.2d 802 (2013) (setting forth the elements of breach of contract). HPS has met its burden as to this requirement.
1. The Agreement is Enforceable
As a threshold issue, the Agreement is an enforceable contract between Stockwell and HPS supported by valuable consideration, including, but not limited to HPS' employment of Stockwell, HPS' payment of compensation and benefits to Stockwell, and Stockwell's access to HPS' confidential and trade secret information. See O.C.G.A. § 13-1-1 ("contract is an agreement between two or more parties for the doing ... of some specified thing").
2. The Non-Competition Covenant is Enforceable
Under the Georgia Restrictive Covenants Act ("GRCA"), a non-compete covenant is valid when: (1) justified by a legitimate business interest; (2) applied to an employee in sales or management; and (3) reasonably restricted in time, geographic area, and scope of prohibited activities. NCR Corp. v. Manno , No. 3:12-cv-121-TCB, 2012 WL 12888663 at *6 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 26, 2012) (citing O.C.G.A. § 13-8-53 ; O.C.G.A. § 13-8-55 ). Each requirement is satisfied here.
First, HPS has a legitimate business interest in protecting its "investment of time and money in developing [Stockwell's] skills," as well as in protecting its client relationships, goodwill, and confidential and trade secret information from unfair competition. See O.C.G.A. § 13-8-51(9) ("legitimate business interest[s]" include, but are not limited to, "trade secrets," "valuable confidential information," "substantial relationships with specific prospective or existing customers," "good will," and "specialized training"); Pierce v. Indst. Boiler Co., Inc. , 252 Ga. 558, 559, 315 S.E.2d 423 (1984) (affirming injunction enforcing employment agreement based on employer's legitimate interest in "the investment of time and money in developing the employee's skills"); NCR Corp. , No. 2012 WL 12888663 at *6 (employer has "protectable interest in the trade secrets and confidential information to which [former employee] had access").
Second, Stockwell, as Vice President of Sales at HPS, was responsible for managing HPS' business (or a customarily recognized department or subdivision thereof) by customarily and regularly directing the work of between 50–75 employees, whom he had the power to hire and fire. As such, Stockwell is the type of managerial employee who may be subject to a non-competition covenant under the GRCA. O.C.G.A. § 13-8-53(a)(3).
Third, the non-competition covenant is reasonable and enforceable under the GRCA. The non-competition covenant is limited to one year, which is presumptively reasonable. O.C.G.A. § 13-8-57(b). The non-competition covenant is limited to the geographic area in which HPS does business and, in the present Motion, HPS seeks enforcement of the covenant only in Oklahoma and Texas, which is reasonable given that Stockwell worked for HPS with nationwide responsibilities and is now working for Clearent in those states. O.C.G.A. § 13-8-56(2) ; see also O.C.G.A. § 13-8-53(c)(1) ("any description that provides fair notice of the maximum reasonable scope of the restraint shall satisfy [the requirements of the GRCA], even if the description is generalized or could possibly be stated more narrowly to exclude extraneous matters"). Moreover, the non-competition covenant is reasonable as to scope because it is tied directly to the business of HPS, is limited to competitors that provide "products and services to facilitate or assist with the movement in electronic commerce of payment and financial information, [and] merchant processing," and only restricts Stockwell from providing services to a competitor that are the same or similar to those he provided to HPS. O.C.G.A. § 13-8-56(b) ; see Kennedy v. Shave Barber Co., LLC , 348 Ga. App. 298, 305, 822 S.E.2d 606 (2018) (enforcing scope of covenant prohibiting "selling or providing the services the same or similar" to that provided by former employer).
Fourth, Stockwell had fair notice of the maximum time, territory, and scope of activity restrictions encompassed by the non-competition covenant because they are set forth in the Agreement Stockwell signed. O.C.G.A. § 13-8-53(c)(1) ; see Kennedy , 348 Ga. App. at 304, 822 S.E.2d 606 (former employee had "fair notice" of restrictions when set forth in employment agreement).
3. The Employee Non-Solicitation Covenant is Enforceable
Restrictive covenants addressing solicitation of employees are enforceable when they are "reasonably limited in time" and not fatally "vague or ambiguous." CMGRP, Inc. v. Gallant , 343 Ga. App. 91, 95, 806 S.E.2d 16 (2017).
In this case, the employee non-solicitation covenant in the Agreement is reasonable in time (24 months) and is not vague or ambiguous as to the types of activities that are restricted—i.e. , activities that are "directly or indirectly solicit[ing], recruit[ing], entic[ing], or hir[ing] and of HPS's employees to work for a third party." (Agmt. ¶ 10.) Similar restrictions have been enforced as reasonable by Georgia courts. See, e.g., Gallant , 343 Ga. App. at 102, 806 S.E.2d 16 (enforcing one-year covenant prohibiting employee from directly or indirectly "induc[ing] or encourage[ing] any such employee of the Company to leave the employment of the Company or to join any other company" or "otherwise interfere with the relationship between the Company and any employee of the Company"); Sunstates Refrigerated Servs., Inc. v. Griffin , 215 Ga. App. 61, 61, 64, 449 S.E.2d 858 (1994) (enforcing two-year non-solicitation covenant); U3S Corp. of Am. v. Parker , 202 Ga. App. 374, 376–77, 414 S.E.2d 513 (1991) (enforcing covenant prohibiting former employee from "solicit[ing] or in any manner encourage[ing] employees of the Company to leave the employ of the Company" for a period of two years).
4. Stockwell Breached the Agreement, Including the Non-Competition and Employee Non-Solicitation Covenants
In or around August 2019, Stockwell began working as a Regional Sales Manager for Clearent, which is a direct competitor of HPS that provides the same electronic-payment services as HPS. (Stockwell Decl. ¶ 11; Kerr Aff. ¶¶ 24–30, Exs. 8–9.) Stockwell's job duties include "sales and management," which are substantially the same services he provided to HPS. (Stockwell Decl. ¶ 11; Kerr Aff. ¶ 29.) Accordingly, HPS has prevailed on its claim that Stockwell breached the non-competition covenant by working for Clearent in the geographic area in which he worked for HPS and by performing the same or similar services for Clearent as he did for HPS.
Stockwell was also personally involved in hiring Werkman, a then-HPS employee, on Clearent's behalf. (See Sabatino-Donat Decl. ¶ 6.) HPS has succeeded on its claim that Stockwell violated the employee non-solicitation covenant insofar as he was involved in hiring Werkman away from HPS in favor of Clearent.
For the foregoing reasons, HPS has met its burden of satisfying the first requirement for a permanent injunction—it has prevailed on the merits of its breach of contract claim against Stockwell.
E. HPS Has Shown Irreparable Injury That Cannot be Remedied at Law
HPS has shown that it is facing unfair competition from a direct competitor that is capitalizing on HPS' significant investment of time and money in Stockwell's development as a Vice President at HPS, which cannot be remedied at law. See Pierce , 252 Ga. at 559, 315 S.E.2d 423 (enjoining former employee from working for competitor based on employer's interest in protecting its "investment of time and money in developing the employee's skills"); Manno , 2012 WL 12888663 at *6 (entering injunction enforcing non-compete covenant against former employee who was engaged in "unfair competition"). Moreover, HPS has shown that Stockwell may provide Clearent with a "jumpstart" on targeting HPS' clients due to his access to HPS' confidential and trade secret information, which he could potentially use in his new role for Clearent's benefit. See Manno , 2012 WL 12888663, at *9 ("just because [former employee] has not yet used any of [employer's] information to take its customers does not mean that [former employee's] continued employment as [competitor's] vice president of service delivery and sales does not pose a threat to [employer]"). Accordingly, HPS has established that irreparable harm will result (and has resulted) from Stockwell's non-competition violations, which cannot be remedied at law and requires permanent injunctive relief.
Similarly, HPS established that it has suffered irreparable harm through the loss of at least one of its employees, Werkman, whom Stockwell hired away from HPS to work for Clearent. Stockwell's actions in this regard also warrant permanent injunctive relief as HPS has shown that it will continue to suffer irreparable harm through the potential loss of more employees, which cannot be remedied at law and requires a permanent injunction. See Bijou Salon & Spa, LLC v. Kensington Enterp., Inc. , 283 Ga. App. 857–58, 643 S.E.2d 531 (2007) (affirming injunction where defendants solicited employees); Manno , 2012 WL 12888663, at *6 (irreparable harm due to "ongoing interference with [plaintiff's] relationship with its employees" supported injunction).
HPS has met its burden as to the second and third requirements for a permanent injunction, that in the absence of a permanent injunction, HPS will suffer irreparable injury that cannot be remedied by law.
F. The Injunction Would Serve Georgia's Public Interest
HPS has also established that the requested injunction will serve the public interest as expressed by the Georgia legislature in the GRCA. That is, the injunction will serve Georgia's interest of "protecting legitimate business interests and creating an environment that is favorable to attracting commercial enterprises to Georgia and keeping existing businesses within the state." O.C.G.A. § 13-8-50 (explaining General Assembly's finding that "restrictive covenants" serve "legitimate" purposes). Indeed, there is a "cognizable public interest exists in upholding an agreement pursuant to which an employer sought to protect itself from post-termination piracy of the most valuable information it owns, as well as discouraging employees from breaching their employer's trust and misappropriating trade secret and confidential information for their own gain." Variable Ann. Life Ins. Co. v. Joiner , 454 F. Supp. 2d 1297, 1305 (S.D. Ga. 2006).
HPS has accordingly met its burden as to the final requirement for a permanent injunction, that an injunction serve Georgia's public interest.
G. The Threatened Injury to HPS Outweighs Whatever Damage the Proposed Injunction May Cause Stockwell
Though HPS is not required to show that the irreparable harm HPS has suffered outweighs any potential harm to Stockwell as the result of the enforcement of the Agreement, it has done so. The Court recognizes that Stockwell will suffer some harm if the injunction is issued given that his ability to work for Clearent will be restricted. However, the Agreement, which Stockwell signed, states that the enforcement of the non-competition covenant will not prevent him from working or earning a living, and there is no evidence stating or suggesting that he will not be able to do so if enjoined. (See Agmt. ¶ 12(c); see generally Stockwell Decl.; Werkman Decl.; Sabatino-Donat Decl.) Thus, any potential harm to Stockwell "is the result of enforcement of a covenant not to compete to which [he] agreed[,]" and is outweighed by the potential harm to HPS if the injunction is not entered. See Manno , 2012 WL 12888663, at *9 (quoting Smallbizpros, Inc. v. Court , 414 F. Supp. 2d 1245, 1251 (M.D. Ga. 2006) (entering injunction even though "defendants will have to discontinue or move their business, which is their livelihood")); Bijou , 283 Ga. App at 861, 643 S.E.2d 531 (affirming injunction where defendants "intentionally disregarded their covenants in almost every way").
IV. CONCLUSION
The Parties' Motion is GRANTED. It is hereby the FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT of this Court that: 1. Through and including July 1, 2020, Stockwell is restrained and enjoined from working for Clearent in any position that involves the sale of payment-processing, electronic credit-and-debit-processing services, or the lease or sale of point-of-sale terminals and processing-related products in Texas and Oklahoma;
2. Through and including July 1, 2020, Stockwell is restrained and enjoined from working for Clearent in any position that involves the management of employees who sell or solicit the sale of payment-processing, electronic credit-and-debit-processing services, or the lease or sale of point-of-sale terminals and processing-related products on behalf of Clearent in Texas and Oklahoma;
3. Through and including July 1, 2021, Stockwell is restrained and enjoined from the direct or indirect solicitation, enticement, inducement, or hiring of employees away from HPS in favor of any third party;
4. Stockwell is restrained and enjoined from using or disclosing HPS' confidential or trade secret information; and
5. The Clerk of the Court is ordered to return to HPS the $50,000 injunction bond HPS posted in connection with the entry of the Preliminary Injunction Order.
SO ORDERED this 5th day of March 2020.