Before Justices Saitta, Hardesty, and Parraguirre. Opinion by Justice Parraguirre.
In this consolidated appeal from an order granting a preliminary injunction and an order refusing to dissolve the preliminary injunction, the Court applied the test for preliminary injunction and then addressed an issue of first impression in Nevada: whether non-competition provisions of an agreement should continue to be enforced after the expiration of the agreement. The agreement in this case prohibited appellant from competing against the respondent’s business, hiring respondent’s employees, making disparaging remarks about respondent, and disclosing any non-public information regarding the nature of respondent’s business. During the term of the agreement, appellant took many of those actions. Based on factual findings regarding appellant’s breach of the agreement, the district court entered a preliminary injunction binding appellant to the terms of the agreement; the Court affirmed the order granting the injunction. After the agreement expired, appellant moved to dissolve the injunction and the district court refused. The Court reversed the district court, holding that the injunction should have been dissolved except as to those portions of the injunction designed to protect respondent’s trade secrets. The Court held that the district court had not correctly applied the factors for extending an injunction under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act and reversed and remanded for appropriate consideration of those factors. Reversed and remanded. (Kerry S. Doyle, Associate in the Reno office of McDonald Carano Wilson.)
