In Executive Home Care Franchising LLC v. Marshall Health Corp., the Third Circuit ruled on the district court's denial of injunctive relief sought by Executive Home Care Franchising LLC. Executive Care is best described as a home health care franchisor. The franchisees entered into a franchise agreement with Executive Care in February 2013. In January 2015, the franchisees abandoned the franchise. The franchisor filed suit, alleging that the franchisees operated a “new, identically structured and directly competitive home care business.” Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The franchise agreement included two provisions of direct relevance to the dispute: 1) a non-compete clause that, for two years after the agreement was terminated, prohibited franchisees from engaging in any competitive business within a ten-mile radius of any Executive Care office or business location; and 2) a provision in which franchisees specifically acknowledged that Executive Care would be entitled to injunctive relief if franchisees challenged the franchise agreement. The franchisor in this case requested a temporary restraining order (TRO) to cease the competing business activity of the franchisees. The franchisor argued that the franchisees' new business was competitive in the same territory in which the franchise previously operated. Furthermore, the franchisor argued that the former franchisees could have illegally competed with the franchisor given: a) the education they received; and b) their access to exclusive marketing materials. Despite these arguments, the district court rejected the injunctive relief, concluding that Executive Care had not demonstrated that it would suffer serious harm if a TRO were denied. Executive Care has appealed this decision. The Third Circuit affirmed, approving the district court's finding of irreparable harm. The Third Circuit hearing the matter found it material that Executive Care's counsel had agreed that the former franchisees had turned over all known information containing the franchisor's trademarks and other proprietary materials. The Third Circuit also relied on counsel's concession that the previous franchisees no longer operated out of the franchise location and did not use Executive Care's trademarks. Largely on the basis of these concessions, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of injunctive relief. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Although Executive Care argued that the injunctive relief was necessary to prevent harm to the system and to avoid a precedent that would encourage other franchisees to violate their franchise agreements, the federal courts analyzing the TRO motion carefully considered the facts of the matter to determine that injunctive relief was not necessary in this matter. The concessions made by the franchisor's attorney were important to the Third Circuit's decision and serve as a further warning to counsel that statements made at the oral stage may cause substantial harm. It is also significant that the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the TRO despite the presence of a provision in the franchise agreement that expressly recognizes that injunctive relief.’