Radiant Global Logistics, Inc. v. Charles Furstenau, Jr.

Citation: Not availableDocket: 19-1297

Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; February 24, 2020; Federal Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Radiant Global Logistics, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Charles Furstenau, Jr. and his new company, BTX Air Express of Detroit, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets after Furstenau left Radiant to join BTX. The district court granted Radiant a preliminary injunction, preventing Furstenau and former Radiant employees from using Radiant’s trade secrets and contacting certain customers for six months. Following the expiration of the six-month period, the appeal was deemed moot, leading to the dismissal of the case. The court noted that BTX did not contest the indefinite trade-secret restrictions imposed by the injunction. The opinion was delivered per curiam, with Circuit Judge Sutton providing a separate concurring opinion. The appeal arose under the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Parties seeking federal court jurisdiction must demonstrate a 'legally cognizable interest' in the outcome of the case, which must persist throughout the litigation. If a claimant loses their personal stake or if the court cannot grant meaningful relief, the case is deemed moot. In this instance, the six-month noncompete restrictions against BTX have expired, rendering the challenge to those terms moot as the court cannot provide any relief. While an ongoing injunction restricts BTX’s use of Radiant's trade secrets, BTX did not object to this aspect of the injunction, meaning there is no live case or controversy regarding it.

BTX asserts a mootness exception based on the dispute being 'capable of repetition, yet evading review.' However, this applies only to inherently fleeting disputes, not to the trade secret claims at issue, which could still be reviewed after the district court's final judgment. BTX expresses concern that the injunction could encompass more than just specific emails, but it must seek clarification from the district court instead of challenging it here. The district court has indicated that general employee knowledge does not qualify as a trade secret.

BTX’s reference to ongoing discovery relates to preparing for trial, not the preliminary injunction, and cannot be contested through an interlocutory appeal. Finally, regarding the appeal's resolution, BTX requested vacatur of the district court’s order, while Radiant opposed this. The court sided with Radiant, deciding not to vacate the order since vacatur is an equitable remedy and BTX did not timely request it, which suggests waiver.

BTX's request for vacatur is inappropriate regardless of whether it has forfeited that right. Vacatur is intended to protect a losing party from the effects of an adverse ruling without an opportunity to appeal. However, this concern is diminished in cases involving preliminary injunctions, which lack preclusive effects on subsequent decisions regarding permanent injunctions. The dismissal without vacatur is commonly accepted in the context of preliminary injunctions, particularly when the prevailing party did not cause the mootness of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, with no comments on the merits of the district court’s decision or Radiant's chances of success in future proceedings. Judge Sutton concurs, agreeing on the mootness of the appeal and BTX's forfeiture of vacatur.