LeafFilter North, LLC, et al. v. Marshall

PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
LEAFFILTER NORTH, LLC, et al., 	)
) 	CASE NO. 5:26-cv-44
Plaintiffs, 	)
)
v. 	) 	JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON
)
CURTIS MARSHALL, 	)
)
)
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER
Defendant. 	) 	[Resolving ECF No. 2]
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Emergency Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. ECF No. 2. The Court conducted a hearing on
January 12, 2026 at which oral argument was heard. Having been duly advised, the Court grants
Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.
I. 	BACKGROUND
A. Stipulated Facts
Consistent with the Court’s Order setting this matter for a hearing, the parties timely
submitted a Joint Stipulation of Facts (ECF No. 12), which provides:
1. 	Plaintiff LeafFilter LLC (“LeafFilter”) markets and sells its proprietary gutter protection
product that prevents leaves and debris from clogging the inside of gutters across the
United States. LeafFilter also markets, sells, and arranges for ancillary services,
including the installation of gutters, soffits, fascia, downspouts, drip edges, flashing, and
roofline lighting.
2. 	LeafFilter is a wholly owned subsidiary of Plaintiff Leaf Home, LLC (“Leaf Home”).
Leaf Home sells and installs water treatment solutions through its wholly owned
subsidiary, Leaf Home Water Solutions, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; sells
and installs stair lifts and vertical lifts through its wholly owned subsidiary, Leaf Home
Safety Solutions, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and sells and installs bath,
shower, and bath remodeling home remodeling through its wholly owned subsidiary,
Case: 5:26-cv-00044-BYP Doc #: 16 Filed: 01/14/26 1 of 18. PageID #: <pageID>

(5:26CV44)
2
Leaf Home Bath, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, previously sold by Leaf
Home Enhancements, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.
3. 	Defendant Curtis Marshall was employed by LeafFilter from August 1, 2016 until
December 31, 2025.
4. 	Marshall is party to the Employment Agreement with LeafFilter effective as of April 1,
2024 (the “Employment Agreement”). The Parties stipulate that a true and accurate copy
of the Employment Agreement is attached to the Complaint. ECF No. 1-2.
5. 	On April 22, 2024, Marshall executed a Joinder (the “Joinder”) to Limited Liability
Company Agreement of LeafFilter Management Aggregator, LLC (“Leaf Management
Agreement”). The Parties stipulate that a true and accurate copy of the Joinder and Leaf
Management Agreement are attached to the Complaint. ECF No. 1-3; ECF No. 1-4.
6. 	The Parties stipulate that a true and accurate copy of the Amended and Restated Limited
Liability Company Agreement of Leaf Holdings, LLC dated September 30, 2016 is
attached to the Complaint. ECF No. 1-5.
7. 	On April 22, 2024, Marshall executed an RSU Award Agreement Pursuant to the Leaf
Holdings LLC 2016 Equity Incentive Plant (the “RSU Award”). The Parties stipulated
that a copy of the RSU Award is attached to the Complaint. ECF No. 1-6.
8. 	On April 22, 2024, Marshall executed a PSU Award Agreement Pursuant to the Leaf
Holdings LLC 2016 Equity Incentive Plant (the “PSU Award”). The Parties stipulated
that a copy of the PSU Award is attached to the Complaint. ECF No. 1-7.
9. 	On December 29, 2025, Marshall submitted notice of his intent to resign his employment
with LeafFilter effective January 2, 2026.
10. LeafFilter accelerated Marshall’s separation date with LeafFilter and accepted his
resignation effective December 30, 2025.
11. On January 5, 2026, Marshall became employed by Premier Home Pros, LLC as its Chief
Sales Officer.
B. Factual Background
Defendant Curtis Marshall was employed by LeafFilter from August 1, 2016, until
December 30, 2025. In 2024, he was promoted to Vice President of Sales West and executed
several agreements relative to his employment. ECF No. 12. On December 29, 2025, Marshall
submitted notice of his resignation, effective January 2, 2026. Plaintiffs made his resignation
effective December 30, 2025. By Verified Complaint, Plaintiff’s alleges that, between
Case: 5:26-cv-00044-BYP Doc #: 16 Filed: 01/14/26 2 of 18. PageID #: <pageID>

(5:26CV44)
3
December 23 and December 30, 2025, Defendant accessed, altered, and downloaded hundreds of
files containing data Plaintiffs considered confidential and proprietary information and trade
secrets. ECF No. 1. In addition, Defendant downloaded 95 files to a PHOTOSTICK device,
including pricing sheets, sales training materials, sales representative compensation plans, and
other similar materials. ECF No. 13-1 at PageID ##: 352–54. Now Defendant is employed as
Chief Sales Officer by Premier Home Pros, LLC (“Premier”), a direct and indirect competitor of
Plaintiffs. ECF No. 1, ⁋ 4; ECF No. 12, ⁋ 11.
1. 	Employment Agreement
The Employment Agreement states:
WHEREAS, the Company and its affiliates have engaged in, and
shall continue to engage in, the business of the design, marketing
and selling or renovation and remodeling products and services
including gutters, gutter filters and providing related gutter cleaning,
re-sealing, realignment and installation services and also including:
aging-in-place 	products 	and 	services 	including 	walk 	in 	tubs,
accessible showers, stair lifts, and ramps; baths (regular), windows,
doors, roofing and similar exterior solutions products; and water
filtration and treatment.
ECF No. 1-2 at PageID #: 45. 	The Employment Agreement also includes a nondisclosure and
nonuse of confidential information provision, enshrined at Section 6. 	That provision reads, in
relevant part:
The Executive shall not, directly or indirectly, disclose or use at any
time without the written consent of the Company, either during the
Employment Period or thereaft, and Confidential Information . . . of
which the Executive is or becomes aware, whether or not such
information is developed by him[.]
ECF No. 1-2 at PageID #: 50. The term “Confidential Information” is defined as “information that
is not generally known to the public and that is used, developed or obtained by the Company or
any Affiliate in connection with its business . . . concerning the business or affairs of the Company
Case: 5:26-cv-00044-BYP Doc #: 16 Filed: 01/14/26 3 of 18. PageID #: <pageID>

(5:26CV44)
4
or its Affiliates.” ECF No. 1-2 at PageID #: 51. Such information includes, inter alia, product
and service information, costs and pricing, designs, analyses, charts, databases, accounting and
business methods, customer and client lists, and other business strategies. ECF No. 1-2 at PageID
#: 51.
Finally, the Employment Agreement contains a Non-Competition; Non-Solicitation; Non-
Disparagement clause which prohibits Defendant from “directly or indirectly” owning, managing,
controlling, consulting, or participating in any business competing with LeafFilter and its affiliates.
ECF No. 1-2 at PageID #: 52. 	Defendant is also prohibited from soliciting any employees,
independent contractors, or customers. ECF No. 1-2 at PageID #: 53. This restriction is limited
to one year (with possibility of an extension of up to twelve additional months) and incompasses
Ohio, the continental United States, Alaska and Hawaii, and other U.S. territories, and any other
country in which Plaintiffs conduct business.1 ECF No. 1-2 at PageID #: 52.
2. 	Joinder, Leaf Management Agreement, and Amended Leaf Management
Agreement
Defendant also executed the Joinder, which incorporates by reference, Section 3.5 of the
Leaf Management Agreement and Section 21.13. ECF No. 1-3; ECF No. 12, ⁋ 5. Those provisions
provide, in relevant part, as follows:
3.5 Non-Compete; Non-Solicit.
(a) The Non-Compete and Non-Solicit covenants set forth in Section
21.13 of the Leaf Holdings Agreement are hereby incorporated by
reference in their entirety and shall apply to each Member . . .
(b) Each Member acknowledges and agrees that the covenants
contained in Section 21.13 of the Leaf Holdings Agreement and
incorporated herein pursuant to Section 3.5(a) are a part of this
otherwise enforceable agreement to consummate the transactions
1 During the hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel said that Canada is included.
Case: 5:26-cv-00044-BYP Doc #: 16 Filed: 01/14/26 4 of 18. PageID #: <pageID>

(5:26CV44)
5
described herein. 	Each Member understands that the foregoing
restrictions may limit the ability of such Person to earn a livelihood
in a business similar to the Business, but such Person nevertheless
believes that he, she or it has received and will receive sufficient
consideration and other benefits hereunder to clearly justify such
restrictions which, in any event, such Person does not believe would
prevent him, her or it from otherwise earning a living. Member
acknowledges and agrees that (i) the Sponsor Investor has required
that each Member make the covenants set forth in this Section 3.5
as a condition to the Purchaser’s obligations to consummate the
transactions contemplated by the Purchase Agreement and (ii) the
provisions of this Section 3.5 are reasonable and necessary to protect
and preserve the legitimate interests of the Business.
ECF No. 1-4 at PageID #: 74.
21.13 Non-Compete; Non-Solicit.
(a) . . . Therefore, during the Non-Compete Period . . . [Defendant]
shall [not] directly or indirectly, own, manage, control, participate
in, consult with, render services for, receive any economic benefit
from or exert any influence upon, or in any manner engage in or
represent any business within any Restricted Territory that is
competitive with the business and/or services of the Company, its
subsidiaries and other Affiliates . . .
ECF No. 1-5 at PageID #: 139. As with the Employment Agreement, the Leaf Management
Agreement explicitly prohibits Defendant from soliciting Plaintiffs’ employees, independent
contractors, or customers. The “Restricted Territory” includes Ohio, the Continental United
States, Alaska and Hawaii, and U.S. territories, and Canada. ECF No. 1-5 at PageID #: 151.
Notably, however, the “Non-Compete Period” includes Defendant’s employment term and three
years thereafter. ECF No. 1-5 at PageID #: 150.
3. 	The RSU Award and PSU Award
Finally, the RSU Award and PSU Award each contain virtually identical nondisclosure
and nonuse provisions that state:
The Participant shall not, directly or indirectly, disclose or use at any
time . . . either during the Participant’s period of service or
thereafter, any Confidential Information . . . of which the Participant
Case: 5:26-cv-00044-BYP Doc #: 16 Filed: 01/14/26 5 of 18. PageID #: <pageID>

(5:26CV44)
6
is or becomes aware of, whether or not such information is
developed by the Participant.
ECF No. 1-6 at PageID #: 184; ECF No. 1-7 at PageID #: 200. As in the Employment
Agreement, the term “Confidential Information” is defined as “information that is not generally
known to the public and that is used, developed or obtained by the Company or any Affiliate in
connection with its business . . . concerning the business or affairs of the Company or its
Affiliates.” ECF No. 1-6 at PageID #: 184–85; ECF No. 1-7 at PageID #: 200–01. Both
agreements also include a non-competition provision that is virtually identical to the
Employment Agreement provision. ECF No. 1-6 at PageID #: 185–86; ECF No. 1-7 at PageID
#: 202–03.
II. 	STANDARD OF REVIEW
Four factors are important in determining whether a temporary restraining order is
appropriate: (1) whether the movant has a strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether
the movant would suffer irreparable injury without the injunction; (3) whether issuance of the
injunction would cause substantial harm to others; and (4) whether the public interest would be
served by issuance of the injunction. Stryker Emp. Co., LLC v. Abbas, 60 F.4th 372, 387 (6th
Cir. 2023) (citing Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)); Am. Family Life
Ins. Co. v. Hagan, 266 F. Supp.2d 682, 687 (N.D. Ohio 2002) (O’Malley, J.); see also Reid v.
Hood, No. 1:10 CV 2842, 2011 WL 251437, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 26, 2011) (Gwin, J.) (noting
that “standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is logically the same as for a preliminary
injunction with emphasis, however, on irreparable harm given that the purpose of a temporary
restraining order is to maintain the status quo”) (citing New Motor Vehicle Bd. of Cal. v. Orrin
W. Fox Co., 434 U.S. 1345, 1347 n.2 (1977)).
Case: 5:26-cv-00044-BYP Doc #: 16 Filed: 01/14/26 6 of 18. PageID #: <pageID>

(5:26CV44)
7
The test is a flexible one and the factors are not prerequisites to be met but must be
balanced. In re DeLorean Motor Co., 755 F.2d 1223, 1229 (6th Cir. 1985). “The burden of
proving that the circumstances ‘clearly demand’ such an extraordinary remedy is a heavy one:
‘[t]he party seeking the injunction must establish its case by clear and convincing evidence.’”
Marshall v. Ohio Univ., No. 2:15-cv-775, 2015 WL 1179955, at *4 (S.D. Ohio March 13, 2015)
(quoting Overstreet v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Gov’t, 305 F.3d 566, 573 (6th Cir. 2002));
Honeywell, Inc. v. Brewer-Garrett Co., No. 97-3673, 1998 WL 152951, at *3 (6th Cir. March
23,1998)).
III. 	DISCUSSION
A. Plaintiffs’ Likelihood of Success on the Merits
The Court must first determine whether Plaintiffs demonstrated a strong likelihood of
success on the merits of their claims underlying the present Motion. “Although no one factor is
controlling, a finding that there is simply no likelihood of success on the merits is usually fatal.”
Gonzales, 225 F.3d at 625. While Plaintiffs need not prove their case, they must show more than
a mere possibility of success. Certified Restoration Dry Cleaning Network, LLC v. Tenke Corp.,
511 F.3d 535, 543 (6th Cir. 2007).
1. 	Breach of contract claims
To succeed on the merits of their breach of contract claims under Ohio law, Plaintiffs
must demonstrate: (1) the existence of a contract; (2) performance by Plaintiffs; (3) breach by
Defendant; and (4) damage or loss to Plaintiffs resulting from Defendant’s breach. V&M Star
Steel v. Centimark Corp., 678 F.3d 459, 465 (6th Cir. 2012).
It is undisputed that there are four agreements signed by both parties. ECF No. 12. Each
agreement contains several restrictive covenants, including nondisclosure and nonuse of
Case: 5:26-cv-00044-BYP Doc #: 16 Filed: 01/14/26 7 of 18. PageID #: <pageID>

(5:26CV44)
8
information clauses along with non-competition, non-solicitation, and non-disparagement
clauses. It is also undisputed that, after resigning from LeafFilters, Defendant accepted an
executive sales position at Premier, one of Plaintiffs’ direct competitors in bathroom remodeling
products and services.
Defendant attempts to distinguish his responsibilities at LeafFilter from those at Premier,
by arguing that he only worked with Plaintiffs’ gutter protection products and services, which
Premier does not provide. His argument is not well taken.
Section 21.13 of the Leaf Management Agreement (ECF No. 1-4 at PageID #: 139)
prohibits him from competing with any “businesses and/or services of the Company, its
Subsidiaries and other Affiliates.” Plaintiffs’ business and services includes bathroom
remodeling. Moreover, Plaintiffs argue that in his position as a senior vice president, Defendant
was exposed to, had knowledge of, and helped to develop many of Plaintiffs’ sales strategies and
analyses which are used across Plaintiffs’ numerous home improvement markets.
Accordingly, the Court finds, at this juncture, that Defendant’s exposure and knowledge
of Plaintiffs’ sales strategies and modus operandi across numerous home improvement markets
is sufficient to demonstrate that Defendant has breached the non-competition provisions of his
employment contracts.
2. 	Enforceability of the restrictive covenants
Before granting a TRO, the Court must also determine whether the restrictive covenants
are enforceable. Under Ohio law, a non-compete clause is enforceable only if “the employer can
show by clear and convincing evidence that the restrictions imposed . . . (1) are no greater than
necessary for the protection of the employer’s legitimate business interests, (2) do not impose
undue hardship on the employee, and (3) are not injurious to the public.” Brentlinger
Case: 5:26-cv-00044-BYP Doc #: 16 Filed: 01/14/26 8 of 18. PageID #: <pageID>

(5:26CV44)
9
Enterprises v. Curran, 141 Ohio App.3d 640, 645-46 (2001) (citing Raimonde v. Van Vlerah, 42
Ohio St.2d 21 (Ohio 1975) at paragraph two of the syllabus)) (emphasis added). The Ohio
Supreme Court provides nine fact-specific considerations for determining if a restrictive
covenant is reasonable, including whether:
1. 	The restriction is temporally and spatially limited;
2. 	The employee represents the sole contract with the customer;
3. 	The employee is possessed with confidential information or trade secrets;
4. 	The covenant seeks to eliminate competition which would be unfair to the employer
or merely seeks to eliminate ordinary competition;
5. 	The covenant seeks to stifle the inherent skill and expertise of the employee;
6. 	The benefit to the employer is disproportional to the detriment of the employee;
7. 	The covenant operates as a bar to the employee’s sole means of support;
8. 	The employee’s talent which the employer seeks to suppress was actually developed
during the period of employment; and
9. 	The forbidden employment is merely incidental to the main employment.
See Raimonde, 42 Ohio St.2d at 25; FirstEnergy Sols. Corp. v. Flerick, 521 F. App’x
521, 526 (6th Cir. 2013). Whether these factors weigh in favor of reasonableness and
enforceability is fact dependent. Considering the facts currently before the Court finds the
restrictive covenants are reasonable and, therefore, enforceable.
i. 	The restrictions are likely no greater than necessary to protect Plaintiffs’
legitimate business interests.
Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the restrictive covenants at issue are likely no greater
than necessary to protect legitimate business interests. As an initial matter, protecting
confidential information and trade secrets is indubitably a legitimate business interest.
Case: 5:26-cv-00044-BYP Doc #: 16 Filed: 01/14/26 9 of 18. PageID #: <pageID>

(5:26CV44)
10
FirstEnergy Sols., 521 F. App’x at 528. The employment contracts at issue in this case explicitly
protect such interests, and details specific information that is protectable. See, e.g., ECF No. 1-2
at PageID #: 51.
The temporal and geographical scope of the covenants appears reasonably tailored to
protect Plaintiffs’ business interests. Ohio courts have held that one-year restrictive periods are
reasonable depending on the circumstances. See, e.g., MetroHealth Sys. V. Khandelwal, 2022-
Ohio-77, ⁋ 24 (8th Dist.); Union Home Mortg. Corp. v. Ballew, 2025 WL 3750726, at *21 (N.D.
Ohio Dec. 29, 2025) (Calabrese, J.). Several courts have also found a three-year restrictive
period to be reasonable. See, e.g., Procter & Gamble Co. v. Stoneham, 140 Ohio App.3d 260,
276 (1st Dist. 2000) (holding that three years was reasonable because the confidential
information to which defendant had access was useful up to three to five years); Raimonde, 42
Ohio St.2d at 28 (upholding a three-year restrictive covenant). In this case, Plaintiffs have
sufficiently demonstrated that Defendant’s access to and knowledge of confidential and
proprietary sales strategies and systems likely justifies at least a one-year, if not a three-year,
restrictive period.
Similarly, courts have upheld nationwide restrictions, particularly when the employer
operates in a multi-state industry or market. Try Hours, Inc. v. Douville, 985 N.E.2d 955, 966
(Ohio App. Ct. 2013) (holding a nationwide noncompete clause was reasonable given the multi-
state nature of the trucking industry); Horter Inv. Mgmt. LLC v. Cutter, 257 F. Supp. 3d 892, 905
(S.D. Ohio 2017) (holding that a national restriction reasonable because the employer’s business
was national). Defendant argues the worldwide scope of the covenants is excessive because he
only provided services for Plaintiffs’ operations in Western states and in his new position, he
would be working in Eastern states. ECF No. 11 at PageID #: 275. Plaintiffs retort that they
Case: 5:26-cv-00044-BYP Doc #: 16 Filed: 01/14/26 10 of 18. PageID #: <pageID>

(5:26CV44)
11
operate nationally (ECF No. 2 at PageID #: 221) and that Defendant, as a senior executive, had
access to and helped develop sales strategies that Plaintiffs use across industries and markets,
including the Eastern United States. Therefore, Plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated a strong
likelihood that geographical scope of the restriction, which encompasses the United States and
Canada, is reasonable.
Furthermore, Plaintiffs proffered sufficient evidence at this stage in the litigation to
demonstrate Defendant has possession of confidential information or trade secrets. Plaintiffs’
Director of Security and Compliance submitted an affidavit with exhibits showing Defendant
copied 95 files from his LeafFilter-issued laptop to a PHOTOSTICK,2 including files titled, inter
alia, (1) “ALL VERTICALS 3.8.24.xlsx,” (2) “2025 REGIONAL SALES LIST
REVISED.xlsx,” (3) “2025 Weekly Ops Manager Activity – Final Master Copy.pdf,” (4)
“LBLF_Pricing_Sheet_2025_v5.pdf,” “Sales-Rep-Training-Manual-LF-U-S-010-8.5x11_JAN-
2023-Digital.pdf,” (5) “2022 Potential Office Opening.xlsx,” and (6)
“AROpenInvoiceswithasofDate-797.xlsb.” ECF No. 13-1 at PageID ##: 353–54. Plaintiffs
explain that these files contain highly confidential and proprietary information about its
operations and strategies across its various businesses. ECF No. 2 at PageID #: 218. Evidence
that a former employee possesses intimate knowledge of and access to such information is
sufficient to demonstrate possession of confidential information. Union Home Mortg. Corp. v.
Ballew, 2025 WL 3750726, at *21 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 29, 2025). Permitting a former employee
with access to such information to “immediately begin working for a direct competitor” is the
type of unfair competition properly prohibited by restrictive covenants. FirstEnergy Sols., 521
2 This appears to be a portable external storage device.
Case: 5:26-cv-00044-BYP Doc #: 16 Filed: 01/14/26 11 of 18. PageID #: <pageID>

(5:26CV44)
12
F. App’x at 527. Defendant offers no explanation for copying these 95 files other than to argue
weakly that he accessed the files because he thought he would need them in the event LeafFilter
blocked his access to the company’s OneDrive during his last weeks of work. ECF No. 11; ECF
No. 14, ⁋⁋ 28 - 32.
Defendant is now employed by a direct competitor in a similar position to the one he held
at LeafFilter. That his current employment requires him to sell bathroom remodeling products
and services, rather than gutter protection products, does not make his employment less
competitive with Plaintiffs’ bathroom remodeling business, and appears to be within the realm of
activity prohibited by the noncompetition clauses Defendant agreed to abide by.
At this juncture, Plaintiffs have met their burden to show by clear and convincing
evidence that Defendant likely has possession of or access to LeafFilter’s confidential and
proprietary information, that he is directly competing with LeafFilter’s business, and that such
competition is likely unfair.
ii. 	The restrictive covenants likely do not impose undue hardship on
Defendant.
Defendant argues that his sales experience developed within the home improvement
industry and that the restrictive covenants would impinge his ability, as the sole provider, to
support his family. ECF No. 11. Although Defendant’s sales experience has been limited to the
home improvement industry, he has not demonstrated his talents and skills are so niche as to
preclude him from other types of sales positions. During the hearing, Plaintiffs pointed out that
LeafFilter’s businesses do not encompass all home improvement industries, noting that they do
not work in siding, windows, kitchen remodeling, or patio construction. As such, Defendant
likely has alternative employment options within and outside the home improvement industry.
Moreover, the effect of any limitation on competitive employment, for a period of time, on
Case: 5:26-cv-00044-BYP Doc #: 16 Filed: 01/14/26 12 of 18. PageID #: <pageID>

(5:26CV44)
13
Defendant’s ability to “earn a livelihood in a business similar to Plaintiffs” was anticipated. See
ECF No. 1-4 at PageID #: 74, Section 3.5. By signing the Aggregator Agreement, Defendant
agreed that he had or would receive “sufficient consideration” “to clearly justify such
restrictions.” ECF No. 1-4 at PageID #: 74, Section 3.5.
iii. The restrictive covenants are likely do not injure to the public.
As explained further below, the public has an interest in courts enforcing contractual
provisions. Plaintiffs do not seek to prohibit ordinary competition, nor do the restrictive
covenants prevent the public from choosing which company they entrust with home renovation
projects. Accordingly, the Court finds that enforcing the restrictive covenants will not likely
injure the public.
3. 	Misappropriation claims
Plaintiffs allege Defendant misappropriated its confidential and proprietary information
and trade secrets, in violation of the Defendant Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) and the Ohio
Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“OUTSA”). ECF No. 1, Counts V–VI. To succeed on a DTSA
claim, Plaintiffs must demonstrate: “(1) the existence of a trade secret[;] (2) that is related to a
product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce; and (3) the
misappropriation of that trade secret[.]” In re Island Indus., Inc., No. 23-5200, 2024 WL 869858,
2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 5077 (6th Cir. Feb. 29, 2024) (quotation and citation omitted). Similarly,
to succeed on an OUTSA claim, Plaintiffs must show: “(1) the existence of a trade secret; (2)
acquisition of a trade secret as a result of a confidential relationship or through improper means;
and (3) an unauthorized use of the trade secret.” Novus Grp., LLC v. Prudential Fin., Inc., 74
F.4th 424, 427–28 (6th Cir. 2023) (citing Tomaydo-Tomahhdo L.L.C. v. Vozary, 82 N.E.3d 1180,
1184 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017)). Given the similarities between the two statutes and the
Case: 5:26-cv-00044-BYP Doc #: 16 Filed: 01/14/26 13 of 18. PageID #: <pageID>

(5:26CV44)
14
requirements for both federal and Ohio laws, courts generally consider DTSA and OUTSA
claims together. C.R.H. Industrial Water, LLC v. Eiermann, No. 1:23-cv-1805, 2024 WL
4856109, at * 3 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 21, 2024).
In this case, Defendant does not contest that the files at issue contain confidential and
proprietary information or trade secrets. ECF No. 11. Rather, Defendant insists that he did not
misappropriate such information. In particular, Defendant claims that none of the information
cited by Plaintiffs relates to their bathroom remodeling business. He also argues that Plaintiffs
have failed to identify beyond speculation that Defendant has already or will disclose Plaintiffs’
information to Premier. ECF No. 11 at PageID #: 278. Defendant misapprehends Plaintiffs’
burden.
While Plaintiffs “must demonstrate actual misappropriate at trial, under Ohio law, the
Court may grant injunctive relief upon a showing of actual or threatened misappropriation of
trade secrets.” Union Home Mortg. Corp. v. Fratelli, No. 1:23-cv-857, 2025 WL 639315, at *8
(N.D. Ohio Feb. 27, 2025) (Fleming, J.) (citing Patio Enclosures, Inc. v. Herbst, 39 F. App’x
964, 968 (6th Cir. 2002)) (original emphasis).
Although not fully articulated, Plaintiffs rely on the inevitable disclosure doctrine. See
ECF No. 2 at PageID #: 228. The inevitable disclosure doctrine states that “when an employee
with detailed, comprehensive knowledge of an employer’s trade secrets and confidential
information begins employment with a competitor in a substantially similar position, [his]
disclosure of trade secret information is inevitable.” MP TotalCare Servs., Inc. v. Mattimoe, 648
F. Supp. 2d 956, 969 (N.D. Ohio 2009) (citing Berardi’s Fresh Roast Inc. v. PMD Enters., Inc.,
2008 WL 4681825, *4 (Ohio Ct. App. Oct. 23, 2008)). The doctrine establishes a threat of harm
sufficient to warrant injunctive relief preventing a defendant from entering an employment
Case: 5:26-cv-00044-BYP Doc #: 16 Filed: 01/14/26 14 of 18. PageID #: <pageID>

(5:26CV44)
15
situation which would lead to the “inevitable disclosure” of confidential information.
Hydrofarm, Inc. v. Orendorff, 905 N.E.2d 658 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008); Procter & Gamble Co. v.
Stoneham, 747 N.E.2d 268 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000) (injunctive relief can be shown by facts
establishing that an employee with detailed knowledge of an employer’s trade secrets has begun
employment with a competitor of the former employer in a position that is substantially similar
to the position held during the former employment).
Plaintiffs have established that Defendant, in his position as a senior vice president, had
access to and knowledge of LeafFilter’s confidential and proprietary information. Indeed,
Defendant was responsible for developing some of that information. ECF No. 2 at PageID #:
221. Now, in a similar position with Premier, a direct LeafFilter competitor, Defendant is ideally
situated to use or disclose (intentionally or inadvertently) such information to Plaintiffs’
detriment. Therefore, Plaintiffs have met their burden to demonstrate Defendant’s
misappropriation of LeafFilter’s trade secrets and confidential information will inevitably be
disclosed.
B. Irreparable Harms
“An irreparable injury is one for the redress of which . . . there could be no plain,
adequate and complete remedy at law, and for which [money damages] would be impossible,
difficult or incomplete.” Ohio Turnpike Comm’n v. Texaco, Inc., 35 Ohio Misc. 99, 105, 297
N.E.2d 557 (1973). As in the case at bar, “[t]he loss of customer goodwill often amounts to
irreparable injury because the damages flowing from such losses are difficult to compute,” and
“[s]imilarly, the loss of fair competition that results from the breach of a non-competition
covenant is likely to irreparably harm an employer.” Basicomputer Corp. v. Scott, 973 F.2d 507,
Case: 5:26-cv-00044-BYP Doc #: 16 Filed: 01/14/26 15 of 18. PageID #: <pageID>

(5:26CV44)
16
512 (6th Cir. 1992); see also Brakefire, Inc. v. Overbeck, 144 Ohio Misc.2d 35, 64, 878 N.E.2d
84 (2007) (citing Basicomputer).
As discussed above, Plaintiffs’ have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits
for both a breach of the restrictive covenants and misappropriation of trade secrets. Without an
injunction, Defendant would be able to disclose Plaintiffs’ confidential information he acquired
before leaving LeafFilter and joining Premier. Even if Defendant had not downloaded
confidential files, his prior access to and knowledge of such information, compounded by the
fact that he helped to develop some of that information, puts him in a position to use and even
recreate such information for a direct competitor, causing Plaintiffs’ irreparable harm.
C. Harm to Others and Public Interest
The only entities that stand to suffer injury or adverse effects in this case are LeafFilter
(and its affiliates) and Defendant. Enforcing the restrictive covenants would not foreclose
Defendant from working in the home improvement industry, nor eliminate the public’s ability to
choose a home improvement company. Moreover, and as the Court stated at the conclusion of
the electronic hearing, contractual obligations matter. “[P]reserving the sanctity of contractual
relations and preventing unfair competition have traditionally been in the public interest.”
Century Bus. Servs., Inc. v. Urban, 179 Ohio App.3d 111, 118, 900 N.E.2d 1048 (2008);
FirstEnergy Sols., 521 F. App’x at 529 (quoting National Interstate Ins. Co. v. Perro, 934 F.
Supp. 883, 891 (N.D. Ohio 1996)) (“[T]he public interest is always served in the enforcement of
valid restrictive covenants contained in lawful contracts.”).
All four factors support granting temporary injunctive relief and, therefore, Plaintiffs’
Motion for Emergency Restraining Order is granted.
Case: 5:26-cv-00044-BYP Doc #: 16 Filed: 01/14/26 16 of 18. PageID #: <pageID>

(5:26CV44)
17
D. Bond
“The court may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order only if the
movant gives security in an amount the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages
sustained by any party to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 65(c).
The Court has broad discretion to set the bond amount, see Static Control Components, Inc. v.
Lexmark, Int’l Inc., 697 F.3d 387, 400 (6th Cir. 2012), and to require no bond where there is no
proof of likelihood of harm. Ferguson v. Tabah, 288 F.2d 665, 675 (2d Cir. 1961) (citing
Urbain v. Knapp Bros. Mfg. Co., 217 F.2d 810 (6th Cir. 1954)). The Court is satisfied that no
bond is necessary in this case and, therefore, shall require Plaintiffs to post a zero dollar ($0.00)
bond.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Emergency Temporary Restraining
Order (ECF No. 2) is granted. The Court orders as follows:
(1) Defendant, and all persons who are in active concert or participation with Defendant,
are enjoined from further breaches of the restrictive covenants contained within the
following agreements:
a. 	Employment Agreement (ECF No. 1-2),
b. 	LeafFilter Management Aggregator LLC Limited Liability Company
Agreement (ECF No. 1-4) and its amendment (ECF No. 1-5),
c. 	RSU Award Agreement Pursuant to Leaf Holdings LLC 2016 Equity
Incentive Plan (ECF No. 1-6), and
d. 	PSU Award Agreement Pursuant to Leaf Holdings LLC 2016 Equity
Incentive Plan (ECF No. 1-7).
Case: 5:26-cv-00044-BYP Doc #: 16 Filed: 01/14/26 17 of 18. PageID #: <pageID>

(5:26CV44)
18
(2) Defendant, and all persons who are in active concert or participation with Defendant,
are enjoined from any misappropriate of Plaintiffs’ trade secrets.
This Temporary Restraining Order shall remain in effect for fourteen (14) days from the
date of entry (January 12, 2026, at 3:15 p.m.) and shall expire, unless extended for a period not
to exceed another fourteen (14) days, or unless Defendant consents to an extended period.
A preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled for Monday, January 26, 2026, at 1:30 p.m.
in Courtroom 351 before the undersigned. A separate scheduling and briefing Order shall issue
prior to the expiration of this Temporary Restraining Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 14, 2026 	/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Date 	Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge
Case: 5:26-cv-00044-BYP Doc #: 16 Filed: 01/14/26 18 of 18. PageID #: <pageID>