Marsh & McLennan Agency, LLC v. Alliant Insurance Services, Inc.
- Vyskocil
- 1:24-cv-09914
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Marsh & McLennan Agency v. Alliant Insurance Services, Judge Vyskocil denied in part and granted in part defendants’ motion, while denying MMA’s contempt motion.
MMA, Alliant, Johnny Osborne, Margaux Stone, and Rachel Murray were directly affected. The ruling also preserved the injunction’s restriction concerning 38 clients and clarified that the employee-solicitation restriction applies to the individual defendants, not Alliant.
What happened
Marsh & McLennan Agency, LLC sued Alliant Insurance Services, Inc., Johnny Osborne, Margaux Stone, and Rachel Murray. The court had issued a temporary restraining order and then a preliminary injunction, which is a court order issued before a case ends to prevent certain conduct.
The defendants asked the court to change the preliminary injunction. They argued that the court needed to hold another evidence hearing and should let them continue servicing 38 clients who had moved from MMA to Alliant before the court issued its relief. They also challenged language that barred Alliant from soliciting MMA employees. MMA separately asked the court to hold certain defendants in contempt.
Judge Vyskocil denied in part and granted in part the defendants’ motion. She rejected the requests for another hearing and for continued servicing of the 38 clients, but ruled that the injunction should bar the individual defendants—not Alliant—from soliciting MMA employees. She also denied MMA’s contempt motion.
The detailed version
- Marsh & McLennan Agency, LLC v. Alliant Insurance Services, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-09914
- Vyskocil
- Apr. 21, 2025
Background
Marsh & McLennan Agency, LLC (MMA) sought emergency relief against Alliant Insurance Services, Inc., Johnny Osborne, Margaux Stone, and Rachel Murray. The court first issued a temporary restraining order and later issued a preliminary injunction. The order does not describe all of the underlying claims, but it states that the preliminary injunction included restrictions concerning clients and the solicitation of MMA employees.
Defendants’ motion
The defendants moved under Rules 59(e) and 60(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to alter or amend the preliminary injunction. The motion was denied in part and granted in part.
The court denied the defendants’ argument that due process required a second evidentiary hearing before the preliminary injunction was issued. The court said that it had already held a hearing at which both sides had the opportunity to present evidence and arguments. It also concluded that the hearing and the court’s statements made clear that it was considering the preliminary-injunction request at that hearing. The court rejected the defendants’ contention that they were entitled to another hearing.
The court also denied the defendants’ request to continue servicing 38 clients who had switched from MMA to Alliant before the court issued relief. Although the temporary restraining order had not covered those clients, the court later included them in the preliminary injunction after further studying the relevant authorities. The court had already addressed the defendants’ argument that this restriction would unfairly burden clients who chose to transfer their business, and the defendants did not identify authority requiring the court to change that conclusion.
The court granted the motion concerning the final paragraph of the preliminary injunction. It ruled that the language was too broad because it stated that Alliant was barred from soliciting MMA employees. The court said it should have specified that the individual defendants were barred from soliciting MMA employees under their employment agreements, while Alliant itself was not barred by that provision.
MMA’s contempt motion
MMA separately moved to hold defendants, except Margaux Stone, in contempt. The court denied that motion. The order cites authority concerning contempt but does not provide additional factual explanation for the denial.
Disposition
The court denied in part and granted in part the defendants’ motion to alter or amend the preliminary injunction, denied MMA’s contempt motion, and requested that the Clerk terminate ECF Nos. 35 and 41.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.