Reiff v. Alliance

Background

Alex Reiff worked for CyberRisk Alliance, LLC (CRA) and its predecessor from 2012 until CRA terminated him without cause on May 27, 2025. Reiff was a senior-level sales manager who led CRA’s CyberSecurity Summit and recruited cybersecurity companies to sponsor the Summit and other events.

After CRA acquired two companies in October 2022, Reiff signed an updated Employment Agreement and a Bonus Agreement. Both agreements included non-compete and non-solicitation provisions and selected Delaware law. The Employment Agreement restricted Reiff, for 12 months after termination, from working for a competing business in the United States, selling or marketing competing products or services, or soliciting, contacting, providing services to, or doing business with CRA customers.

Reiff asked the court for a preliminary injunction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. He sought to prevent CRA from enforcing those restrictions.

Choice of Law

The court applied New York choice-of-law principles because it was sitting in New York. It upheld the agreements’ selection of Delaware law. The court found that CRA’s incorporation and registration in Delaware, its business dealings with approximately 20 Delaware customers, and other connections provided a reasonable relationship to Delaware.

The court also rejected Reiff’s argument that applying Delaware law would violate New York public policy. It explained that New York’s rule concerning an employee fired without cause involved forfeiting post-employment benefits, not every restrictive covenant. The court found no material difference between New York and Delaware law concerning the enforceability of restrictive covenants, so it found no true conflict requiring New York law to apply.

Likelihood of Success

Under Delaware law, a non-compete must have a reasonable geographic scope and duration, protect a legitimate economic interest, and remain fair after balancing the equities. Reiff argued that the restrictions did not protect a legitimate economic interest because he possessed no CRA-created confidential information and the identities of relevant marketing personnel were publicly available. CRA argued that individual customer contacts could be protectable and that the restrictions were needed to prevent Reiff from soliciting CRA’s customers.

The court distinguished the restrictions from the exceptionally broad restrictions discussed by the Delaware Supreme Court in Sunder Energy, LLC v. Jackson, because Reiff’s restrictions covered only competing businesses and lasted 12 months. Nevertheless, the court found CRA’s arguments unpersuasive in light of recent Delaware decisions disfavoring nationwide non-competes in similar employment circumstances. The court concluded that Reiff had shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits at this stage.

Irreparable Harm

A preliminary injunction requires a showing of harm that is actual and imminent, not speculative, and cannot be remedied after trial through money damages. Reiff argued that the restrictions prevented him from pursuing business opportunities in a narrow industry, harmed his relationships, and affected his ability to provide for himself and his family. He also argued that lost opportunities and relationships could be difficult to quantify.

The court found that Reiff had not shown that his alleged losses could not be adequately remedied with money damages. It found his arguments similar to a Second Circuit decision in which difficulty obtaining work and losing client opportunities did not establish irreparable harm. Because Reiff failed to satisfy this required element, the court denied preliminary relief. The court declined to decide whether an injunction would serve the public interest.

Disposition

Judge Victor Marrero ordered that Reiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, Docket No. 11, is DENIED.