## Facts

- Ed Bertholet & Associates, Inc., a bail bond business, hired Ed Stefanko as a bail bondsman under an employment agreement dated December 2, 1994.
- The agreement included a covenant not to compete and a clause stating Bertholet could seek injunctive relief upon breach.
- The agreement also contained a liquidated damages provision providing a preset monetary remedy for breach.
- After about three years, Stefanko voluntarily resigned on April 17, 1997 and soon began working for a local competitor.
- Bertholet sued to enforce the non-compete and sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction.
- The trial court denied the TRO for failure to comply with Indiana Trial Rule 65(B)(1) and (2).
- After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the preliminary injunction on July 2, 1997, finding Bertholet failed to show irreparable harm.
- Stefanko did not file an appellee’s brief; the appellate court elected to decide the appeal on the merits rather than apply a reduced scrutiny standard.

## Issues

1. Whether an employment contract’s injunction provision required the trial court to grant a preliminary injunction without independent satisfaction of equitable and procedural requirements for injunctive relief.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding Bertholet failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and therefore denying a preliminary injunction.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction.
- The court held that parties cannot, by contract, compel a court to issue injunctive relief or displace the court’s equitable discretion.
- The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding no irreparable harm, emphasizing the contract’s liquidated damages clause as evidence of an adequate legal remedy.

## Legal Principles

- Granting or denying a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy committed to the trial court’s equitable discretion and reviewed on appeal for abuse of discretion.
- A contractual provision stating that injunctive relief is available upon breach does not make injunctive relief automatic; the court must still apply governing standards for preliminary injunctions.
- Injunctive relief generally requires proof of irreparable harm and the inadequacy of legal remedies; the availability of money damages can defeat a claim of irreparable harm.
- A liquidated damages provision may indicate that the parties contemplated monetary compensation as sufficient for breach, supporting a finding that harm is not irreparable.

## Conclusion

The appellate court affirmed the denial of preliminary injunctive relief because a contractual injunction clause cannot bind a court to issue an injunction, and the trial court reasonably found no irreparable harm in light of the contract’s liquidated damages remedy and the adequacy of money damages.


Ed Bertholet & Assocs., Inc. v. Stefanko, 690 N.E.2d 361 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998)