by George Gramlich
After the hearing between Oak Disposal Services, Inc. and P BAR O Disposal et al on December 12th, in the Custer County Courthouse, Magistrate Michael William Weyrick, vacated the Temporary Restraining Order placed on P BAR O on November 20, 2018, allowing them to get back into business.
The courtroom was packed with about 125 attendees.
The Magistrate also declined to grant Oak Disposal a Preliminary Injunction against P BAR O.
The following is a summary with various quotes from the actual written decision filed December 16, 2018, by Magistrate Weyrick and the original complaint filed by Oak Disposal on November 16, 2018.
The Defendants in the case are P BAR O Disposal Inc., LLC, and “Leonard Olomon, an individual, Christina L. Patterson, an individual, Kenneth G. Patterson, an individual, Kevin H. Patterson, an individual, and Julie Olomon, an individual.”
The Plaintiff in this case is Oak Disposal Services, Inc. whose Principal is Rich Molpus, a small business investor who recently moved to northern Colorado from Alabama. Molpus purchased Veltrie Disposal from Defendant Christina Patterson and her former husband in 2013 . The purchase price was $900,000 with a down payment of $450,000 and the rest carried as a promissory note by Ms. Patterson and her ex-husband.
Ms. Patterson stayed on with Oak Disposal as the Chief Operating Officer until she resigned effective August 21, 2018. Defendant Leonard Olomon was the “most senior truck driver with Oak Disposal and its predecessor, Veltrie Disposal.”
Oak Disposal’s complaint alleges “that Christina Patterson and Leonard Olomon violated the terms of their non-compete and confidentiality agreements and, together with the other named Defendants, … committed the torts of civil theft, conversion, interference with business relations, and interference with contract, causing the Defendants to be unjustly enriched by their actions.” Also, “in addition to monetary damages, Oak Disposal sought injunctive relief.”
On November 16, 2018, sought via complaint, ”a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction pursuant to C.R.C.P. Rule 65 and C.R.S. 7-74-103. Plaintiff alleged violations of the non-compete agreements by Defendants Christina Patterson and Leonard Olomon and violations of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act by all Defendants.”
“On November 20, 2018, the Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and set a hearing on both the TRO and the motion for a preliminary injunction.” The hearing was held December 12th.
At the December 12th hearing, the Plaintiff called two witnesses, Defendant Christina Patterson and the owner of Oak Disposal, Rich Molpus.
During questioning, testimony by Ms. Patterson established her role at Oak Disposal, her duties, and the fact that she had signed, in addition to a non-compete agreement at the original purchase time, two other agreements entitled, “Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement” and
a “Non-Solicitation Agreement”.
It was also established that Defendant Leonard Olomon had signed “the same
confidentiality and non-solicitation agreements” that Ms. Patterson had signed. Mr. Olomon resigned from Oak Disposal
effective October 31, 2018.
In September or October of this year, “Ms. Patterson’s husband, Kenneth Patterson, his brother, Kevin Patterson and Leonard Olomon formed a Limited Liability Company called P BAR O Disposal, LLC., for the purpose of competing with Oak
Disposal in Custer County.”
The Plaintiff alleged that Ms. Patterson stole confidential customer lists, a vendor list, routing information and other trade secrets and gave them to P BAR O Disposal.
Mr. Molpus then took the stand and attempted to bolster the above claims. However, under questioning, Mr. Molpus admitted he could not prove the allegation that Ms. Patterson had stolen confidential information.
Mr. Molpus also “testified that he lost customers at about the time that P BAR O began operations, but he also admitted that the loss of customers also coincided with the effective date of the new rate increase.” In addition, “Mr. Molpus conceded that although he alleged in his verified complaint that Mr. Olomon solicited customers from Oak Disposal for P BAR O, he could not identify any customer in particular to prove the claim.”
Remember that this hearing was about whether the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)should continue and if the Plaintiff could obtain an injunction against P BAR O until the actual trial concerning the alleged violations and claims of monetary damages could be held.
The Magistrate ruled in favor of P BAR O Disposal on both counts. The TRO was vacated and no Preliminary Injunction was granted.
In his opinion, the Magistrate noted:
“In order to prevail on a motion of injunctive relief, the movant must demonstrate:
1. A reasonable probability of success on the merits;
2. The danger of real, immediate and irreparable harm that can be prevented by injunctive relief.
3. No plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law;
4. No disservice to the public interest;
5. A balance of equities in favor of injunction; and
6. A need for the injunction to preserve the status quo.”

The Magistrate’s opinion then went on in detail how the Plaintiff, Oak Disposal, did not meet these requirements. He went on in detail on the Ms. Patterson’s non-compete was probably not valid for a variety of legal and factual reasons. The Magistrate also noted that Mr. Olomon was a truck driver at Oak Disposal, not a supervisor, and questioned if he had any access to confidential secrets at all.

So, the TRO is vacated and no Preliminary Injunction was granted. P BAR O Disposal is back in business. Note that the actual lawsuit against P BAR O is still in existence. No date on a trial/hearing is set yet.