PARADIGM HEALTH SYSTEM, L.L.C.
Appeal from the Twenty-Second Judicial District Court In and
for the Parish of St. Tammany State of Louisiana Trial Court
No. 2015-14210, Div. D The Honorable Peter J. Garcia, Judge
Vincent F. Wynne, Jr. Shannon K. Lowry Covington, Louisiana
Attorneys for Plaintiff/ Appellant, Paradigm Health System,
A. Cranner Ryan G. Davis Mandeville, Louisiana Attorneys for
Defendant/ Appellee, Barry Faust, M.D.
BEFORE: PETTIGREW, McDONALD, AND CALLOWAY  , JJ.
Paradigm Health System, L.L.C. (Paradigm), appeals a judgment
denying preliminary injunctive relief, based upon the trial
court's determination that the noncompetition provisions
of Paradigm's employment agreement with Barry Faust, M.D.
were invalid and unenforceable. For the reasons stated
herein, we affirm.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
filed a declaratory judgment, petition for damages, and a
request for injunctive relief against Dr. Faust, claiming
that he breached the noncompetition clause of an employment
agreement between the parties. In June of 2014, Paradigm and
Dr. Faust entered into an employment agreement, which stated
that for two years after termination of the employment, Dr.
Faust could not, "engage in the practice of medicine or
render any medical services to any business similar to those
services provided by [Paradigm]...." Paradigm claims
that Dr. Faust resigned his employment on April 23, 2015. At
the time Paradigm filed the petition on October 16, 2015,
Paradigm claimed that Dr. Faust was actively seeking
employment in the parishes restricted by the noncompetition
agreement, St. Tammany, Tangipahoa, and/or the restricted
portions of Jefferson Parish. Paradigm sought injunctive
relief to prevent Dr. Faust from violating the noncompetition
agreement, as well as damages and a declaratory judgment
declaring the restrictive covenants in the employment
agreement to be valid and enforceable.
response, Dr. Faust denied that he resigned his employment,
claimed he was terminated by Paradigm on April 21, 2015, and
filed a reconventional demand asserting a claim for past
wages. Dr. Faust filed a supplemental and amending
reconventional demand claiming Paradigm breached the
employment agreement by terminating him before he had worked
for one year, and he also sought penalties and attorney's
trial court held a hearing on the injunctive relief sought by
Paradigm on March 8, 2015. The trial court heard oral
argument and continued the matter for the parties to complete
discovery. On May 17, 2015, the trial court heard the
continuation of the request for injunctive
relief. The noncompetition agreement prohibited
Dr. Faust from the following:
[E]ngage in the practice of medicine or render any medical
services to any business similar to those services provided
by [Paradigm], located in the Louisiana Parishes of St.
Tammany, Jefferson (exception of city of Kenner, and
Westbank) and Tangipahoa. The list of parishes and locations
shall be expanded if the Company opens new offices in
additional locales in which case [this section] shall apply
to the new [Paradigm] offices. Violation of this provision
shall result in liquidated damages of $400, 000.
trial court determined that the language of the
noncompetition agreement was overly broad, since it
restricted Dr. Faust from the "practice of
medicine" without being limited to his field of pain
management. The trial court also found that the
noncompetition agreement was overly broad and unenforceable
because it attempted to add "locales" where
Paradigm might open offices in the future to the geographic
limitation. The trial court denied the request for
preliminary injunctive relief.
trial court signed a judgment on June 13, 2016, denying the
preliminary injunctive relief, and Paradigm filed this
appeal. This court issued a rule to show cause, as the
judgment appeared to be a partial judgment and did not appear
to address all the claims Paradigm had against Dr. Faust.
Pursuant to that order, the trial court signed an amended
judgment on October 25, 2016, designating the judgment as a
final judgment pursuant to La. CC.P. art. 1915(B) and issuing
a per curiam giving explicit reasons as to the