HOPPER V. ALL PET ANIMAL CLINIC
861 P.2d 531 (Wyo. 1993)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Hopper (D) sought review from an order which enforced the terms of a
covenant not to compete contained within an employment agreement with All Pet's (P) clinic
and corporate entity. In a companion case, consolidated for appeal, P sought review of the
trial court's denial of their damages claim for breach of the agreement.
FACTS: Dr. Hopper (D) worked part-time as a veterinarian for All Pet Animal Clinic (P). P
specialized in the care of small animals; mostly domesticated dogs and cats, and those
exotic animals maintained as household pets. D was eventually offered full time employment
which included a specified salary and potential for bonus earnings as well as other terms of
employment. This was conditioned upon acceptance of a covenant not to compete, the specific
details of which were not discussed at the time. Full-time employment was commenced under an
oral agreement. Eventually a written contract was completed. Upon termination, D agreed that
she will not practice small animal medicine for a period of three years from the date of
termination within 5 miles of the corporate limits of the City of Laramie, Wyoming. D also
agreed that the duration and geographic scope of that limitation is reasonable. The contract
was terminable by either party on thirty days notice. This covenant was supported by an
increase in salary to D. One year later, D was discovered to be investigating the purchase
of a veterinary practice in Laramie. P offered a release from the non-competition agreement
in return for a cash buy-out. P wanted $40,000.00, to compensate the practice for the loss
of business which will happen if you practice small-animal medicine elsewhere in Laramie. D
denied that she was going to purchase the practice and told P that the agreement was not
worth the paper it was written on and that she could do anything she wanted to do. P
terminated D's employment and informed her to consider the 30-day notice as having been
given. D purchased the Gem Clinic and operated it in violation of the covenant not to
compete, within the City of Laramie and with a practice including large and small animals. D
grew the client list from 368 at the time she purchased the practice to approximately 950 at
the time of trial. Of those, 187 clients were served by D at Gem City who were also clients
of P or Alpine. The small animal work of D contributed from fifty-one to fifty-two percent
of her gross income at Gem City. P and Alpine filed a complaint against D seeking injunctive
relief and damages for breach of the covenant not to compete. The district court determined
that the covenant not to compete was enforceable as a matter of law and contained reasonable
durational and geographic limits. D was enjoined from practicing small animal medicine
within five miles of the corporate limits of the City of Laramie for a period of three years
from July 18, 1991. The district court found that the amount of damages suffered by D and
Alpine was speculative and not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Everybody
appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment