{ "id": 3204325, "name": "CENTRAL BUILDING & CLEANING COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THOMAS H. VODNANSKY, Defendant-Appellee. - (LOUIS KRAML, Indiv. and d/b/a Kraml's Continental Tuckpointing Building & Maintenance Company, Defendant.)", "name_abbreviation": "Central Building & Cleaning Co. v. Vodnansky", "decision_date": "1980-05-08", "docket_number": "No. 79-1433", "first_page": "586", "last_page": "590", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "84 Ill. App. 3d 586" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "398 N.E.2d 290", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "79 Ill. App. 3d 74", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5609693 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/79/0074-01" ] }, { "cite": "329 N.E.2d 414", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "28 Ill. App. 3d 686", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5411636 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/28/0686-01" ] }, { "cite": "345 N.E.2d 795", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "37 Ill. App. 3d 132", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2714119 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/37/0132-01" ] }, { "cite": "390 N.E.2d 68", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "71 Ill. App. 3d 710", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5582688 ], "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/71/0710-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 612, "char_count": 11512, "ocr_confidence": 0.854, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.193471965228284e-07, "percentile": 0.8654050873236239 }, "sha256": "a69367c5dd68e888179f832834155fe92c5d998d988cea5cdc56289933022418", "simhash": "1:17a134c79fcac321", "word_count": 1817 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:36:38.181565+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "CENTRAL BUILDING & CLEANING COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THOMAS H. VODNANSKY, Defendant-Appellee. \u2014 (LOUIS KRAML, Indiv. and d/b/a Kraml\u2019s Continental Tuckpointing Building & Maintenance Company, Defendant.)" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. JUSTICE JIG ANTI\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe plaintiff, Central Building & Cleaning Company, Inc. (Central), appeals from an order of the circuit court of Cook County which denied its petition for a preliminary injunction against the defendant, Thomas H. Vodnansky. The other defendant, Louis Kraml, was dismissed as a party during the proceeding below. The purpose of the injunction sought by Central was to enforce a covenant not to compete and to protect its trade secrets. On appeal Central argues (1) the trial court\u2019s finding that Central\u2019s employment agreement with Vodnansky was unreasonable and unenforceable, was manifest error and an abuse of discretion and (2) the trial court\u2019s order granting Vodnansky\u2019s motion for denial of a preliminary injunction was an abuse of discretion.\nAt the hearing below Central called three witnesses: Louis Kraml, Vodnansky, and Charles Rivkin, the president of Central. At the close of the plaintiff\u2019s case, Vodnansky moved for denial of the preliminary injunction under section 64(3) of the Civil Practice Act. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 110, par. 64(3).) This motion was granted and Central\u2019s petition for a preliminary injunction was denied.\nCentral has been in the business of tuckpointing, weatherproofing and restoring buildings for 55 years. Its customers are primarily in Cook County, Illinois, but it has some accounts in Lake County, Indiana, and Du Page, Will and Lake Counties, Illinois. Central has several hundred competitors in the five county area. It has no exclusive customers.\nOn March 1, 1974, after two meetings with Central\u2019s president, Rivkin, Vodnansky accepted a job with Central. Vodnansky began working with Central on March 12, 1974. On that date, Rivkin asked Vodnansky to sign an employment contract. Vodnansky agreed to do so. This contract contained the following provision:\n\u201cIn consideration of the employment by the Employer, Employee agrees that on the termination of his employment for any cause whatsoever he will not directly or indirectly, as an employee of another, or in business for himself, engage in the business of building cleaning, tuckpointing, maintenance or in any competitive business within Cook, Lake, Du Page and Will Counties, Illinois, and Lake County, Indiana, for a period of three (3) years from the date of the termination of such employment; Employee further agrees upon termination, as aforesaid, not to solicit any of the Employer\u2019s customers at any time after such termination, or to ever divulge or disclose any information relating to Employer\u2019s business, or any knowledge or secrets that he had or might, from time to time, have acquired pertaining to the business of the Employer.\u201d\nThere is conflicting testimony as to whether Vodnansky was told prior to March 12 that Central would require him to sign a covenant not to compete.\nVodnansky worked for Central until April 12,1978. During his four-year employment there he estimated jobs, purchased materials and equipment, met with customers, supervised jobs and crews, and was privy to the formulas for various mixes and solutions for use on the jobs.\nOn April 12,1978, Vodnansky left Central. He purchased a company known as Krami\u2019s Continental Tuckpointing Building and Maintenance Company (Kraml), a competitor of Central. After purchasing Kraml, Vodnansky performed work for three companies which Central alleges were its customers. Two of these jobs were done for the Whiston group. The Whiston group had never been a customer of Central but one of its employees had previously worked for one of Central\u2019s customers. The third job was done for a company for which Central had previously done work.\nThe decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge and appellate review is restricted to a determination of whether the trial judge correctly exercised his broad discretionary powers. Image Supplies, Inc. v. Hilmert (1979), 71 Ill. App. 3d 710, 390 N.E.2d 68; Armour & Co. v. United American Food Processors, Inc. (1976), 37 Ill. App. 3d 132, 345 N.E.2d 795.\nThis appeal is from the denial of a preliminary injunction. The substantive issues of this cause have not yet been determined. We will therefore address the substantive issues only so far as is necessary to determine whether the court abused its broad discretion in denying the preliminary injunction.\nFor a preliminary injunction to issue, the movant must establish (1) possession of a right which needs protection; (2) immediate and irreparable injury if the injunction is denied; (3) no adequate remedy at law; and (4) probability of success on the merits. (Image.) Here, such a showing is dependent upon the enforceability of the restrictive covenant.\nA basic reasonableness test is employed to determine the enforceability of a covenant not to compete. (Wessel Co. v. Busa (1975), 28 Ill. App. 3d 686, 329 N.E.2d 414.) These covenants are enforced only if (1) a trade secret or confidential information is involved; (2) the time limits and geographic scope are reasonable; and (3) the restrictions imposed are reasonably necessary for the protection of a legitimate business interest. (Image.) Because Central was required to show a likelihood of success on all three of these issues, the failure to do so as to any one of them would require a denial of the preliminary injunction.\nThe trial court found that Central was not likely to succeed in showing that a trade secret or confidential information is involved. Central argues that its method of estimating is a trade secret and that this method and its methods of supervising jobs, servicing customers, and purchasing supplies and its formulas for various mixes and solutions are confidential information.\nRivkin testified that Central\u2019s method of estimating is a trade secret and is confidential information. He stated that the usual practice in the industry is to estimate using the \u201cunit measurement\u201d technique. Under this method the estimator multiplies the average price per square or lineal foot by the number of feet involved in a job.\nCentral\u2019s method is to estimate the time it will take to do a job, figure the labor costs for the time involved, and add in the cost of materials. Estimators are provided with a list of \u201cvariables\u201d which might affect the amount of time a job will require. These variables include the type and amount of architectural detail, the type of brick or other material, and possible hinderances such as power lines.\nThe variables and other written guidelines serve as a starting point in training an estimator to determine how long a job will take. They help an estimator form a \u201cmental picture\u201d of the work being performed. More important than the fisted variables and written guidelines are the personal training by Rivkin and the estimator\u2019s on-the-job experience through which the estimator learns to determine which variables are important under what circumstances and to analyze the effect the variables will have on the time a given job will require.\nAs part of the training process, Rivkin and an estimator inspect buildings together. The estimator completes an estimate and Rivkin then analyzes that estimate step by step, questioning the estimator and pointing out where the estimator\u2019s analysis differs from Rivkin\u2019s. As the result of estimating several hundred jobs with Rivkin, and after gaining experience on actual jobs, an estimator will, over a period of years, learn to conceptualize and analyze a job the way Rivkin does.\nRivkin testified that Central\u2019s method of servicing customers was confidential information. Central\u2019s personnel are trained to answer customer inquiries honestly. One person is responsible for an entire project through its completion. \u201cSalesmanship\u201d is the key to service in the industry but Central relies upon \u201cservice\u201d instead.\nRivkin testified that Central had a \u201csecret methodology\u201d for purchasing materials and equipment. Vodnansky was given a listing of about 100 suppliers which Central, over a period of 40 to 50 years, had determined would provide reliable service, quality goods and low prices. Rivkin believed that some of these suppliers gave special price considerations to Central. Part of Vodnansky\u2019s job was to find suppliers who would provide service and goods of quality similar to those on Central\u2019s list but at better prices. Central\u2019s suppliers were listed in the telephone book and they sold to the general public. Vodnansky returned the supplier fist to Central before he left the company.\nRivkin testified that Central had a unique method of job supervision. Each supervisor had the specifications for every job and was able to supervise not only the work assigned to him but also those jobs assigned to others.\nRivkin testified that Vodnansky and other management level personnel were given formulas for acid solutions, epoxies, mortar and cement. The foremen or laborers actually made the different mixes, but only the supervisors were allowed to determine what formula would be used.\nVodnansky was called as an adverse witness. He testified that much of the alleged confidential information such as the identity of Central\u2019s suppliers and its formulas was known to the workers. He denied that he had been informed that any of the information was confidential.\nWe conclude that the trial court\u2019s denial of preliminary injunctive relief was not an abuse of discretion. It was not against the manifest weight of the evidence to determine that Central was unlikely to succeed in showing that its formulas, method of supervising jobs, and method of servicing customers were unique, original or confidential or that its sources of equipment and supplies were confidential. Neither was it against the manifest weight of the evidence to conclude that Central\u2019s method of estimating was not a trade secret or confidential information and to conclude instead that Vodnansky learned to estimate through his day-to-day experience and training on the job. We express no opinion as to whether a trade secret or confidential information is involved. These are substantive issues which are yet to be determined.\nIn our view, it is inappropriate at this stage of the proceedings to alter the court\u2019s determination that trade secrets and confidential information are not involved. When the proceedings on the permanent injunction begin, Central will have the opportunity to demonstrate that its various methodologies and formulas are trade secrets or confidential information. At the same time Vodnansky will be able to offer evidence countering these claims. These matters and other issues pertaining to the enforceability of the covenant not to compete and the protectability of the alleged trade secrets will be determined on their merits following the proceedings on the permanent injunction. See Affiliated Hospital Products, Inc. v. Baldwin (1979), 79 Ill. App. 3d 74, 398 N.E.2d 290.\nFor the reasons set forth above the order of the circuit court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nJOHNSON and ROMITI, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. JUSTICE JIG ANTI" } ], "attorneys": [ "Berger, Newmark & Fenchel, of Chicago (Earl B. Lichten, of counsel), for appellant.", "Frankenstein & Frankenstein, of Chicago (Robert R. Frankenstein, of counsel), for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "CENTRAL BUILDING & CLEANING COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THOMAS H. VODNANSKY, Defendant-Appellee. \u2014 (LOUIS KRAML, Indiv. and d/b/a Kraml\u2019s Continental Tuckpointing Building & Maintenance Company, Defendant.)\nFirst District (4th Division)\nNo. 79-1433\nOpinion filed May 8, 1980.\nBerger, Newmark & Fenchel, of Chicago (Earl B. Lichten, of counsel), for appellant.\nFrankenstein & Frankenstein, of Chicago (Robert R. Frankenstein, of counsel), for appellee." }, "file_name": "0586-01", "first_page_order": 608, "last_page_order": 612 }