United Rentals, Inc. et al v. Tyler
| Connecticut District Court | |
| Judge: | Omar A Williams |
| Referred: | S Dave Vatti |
| Case #: | 3:23-cv-01479 |
| Nature of Suit | 190 Contract - Other Contract |
| Cause | 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract |
| Case Filed: | Nov 08, 2023 |
| Terminated: | Mar 27, 2025 |
| Last checked: Tuesday May 07, 2024 4:29 AM EDT |
|
Counter Claimant
Carroll Travis Tyler
|
Represented By
|
|
Counter Defendant
United Rentals (North America), Inc.
|
Represented By
|
|
Counter Defendant
United Rentals, Inc.
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Carroll Travis Tyler
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
United Rentals (North America), Inc.
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
United Rentals, Inc.
|
Represented By
|
| Docket last updated: 08/29/2025 11:59 PM EDT |
| Wednesday, July 23, 2025 | ||
| 40 | 40
order
Order on Motion to Reopen Case
Wed 07/23 4:13 PM
ORDER granting in part ECF No.39 , Motion to Reopen Case and for Reconsideration. Plaintiffs brought this action against Defendant alleging a breach of contract. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant had violated restrictive covenants which were entered appurtenant to an employment agreement. With minimal intervention from the court, the parties negotiated a settlement agreement which included a stipulated permanent injunction which itself clearly is another restrictive covenant agreement. The terms thereof impose broad prohibitions upon Defendant's employment through September 7, 2025, in a geographic area unknown to the court, as it references another agreement to which the court is not privy. The parties asked the court, in a motion spanning only a few sentences in length, to so-order the injunction. ECF No.37 . The court denied that motion, noting that it had not been involved in designing the terms of the injunction (which, at bottom, is a private contract) and consequently was not inclined to assume enforcement duties therefor. ECF No. 38. To be clear, at no point did the court state that it lacked authority to so-order the stipulation; rather, the court exercised its discretion not to use that authority. The court also administratively closed this case, as the parties apparently had entered into an agreement settling the dispute between them. Id. The parties now ask the court to reopen the case and to reconsider so-ordering their new restrictive covenants. They state that (1) there is still a dispute, because absent a so-ordered injunction from the court, Plaintiffs may elect to toss out the settlement agreement and proceed with litigation, and (2) they desire a so-ordered injunction to expose Defendant to contempt sanctions from the court. "[R]econsideration is an extraordinary request that is granted only in rare circumstances...." Van Buskirk v. United Grp. of Companies, Inc. , 935 F.3d 49, 54 (2d Cir. 2019). Such relief is reserved only for situations in which the court has overlooked controlling decisions or data. D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(c)(1). The parties clearly do not satisfy this standard; the only new data the parties rely upon is the fact that their settlement apparently is contingent upon the court so-ordering this stipulated injunction. But this is not information the court overlooked; it is new information the parties neglected to provide. Likewise, the parties point to no controlling authority overlooked by the court. As noted supra, the court's denial resulted not from a perceived lack of authority, but from an affirmative exercise of its own discretion. See In re Morris Metal Prods. Corp. , 4 F.2d 1003, 1004 (2d Cir. 1924) ("[I]t often takes three to make [a stipulation]the court is the third."). Accordingly, there is no basis to reconsider the courts prior order. Furthermore, the parties fail to present any compelling reason to vacate the court's prior ruling. Stipulations, of course, generally are favored by courts, as they tend to narrow the issues requiring adjudication. Burstein v. United States, 232 F.2d 19, 23 (8th Cir. 1956) ("Stipulations fairly entered into are favored."). But the court has concerns about ordering an equitable remedy with no review of the merits therefor. See generally DVD Copy Control Assn., Inc. v. Kaleidescape, Inc. , 176 Cal. App. 4th 697, 726, 97 Cal. Rptr. 3d 856, 879 (2009). Indeed, the parties' only professed purpose for their request is to avail themselves of the court's contempt powers. ECF No.39 at 4 n.4. But those powers are the court's to use at its own discretion as and when it sees fit; they are not for private parties to exercise by proxy via contractual agreement, nor may a court be compelled to exercise those powers by contractual agreement. Thus, the instant stipulation performs no litigative purpose, and actually excludes the court from any adjudicative role, instead reducing the court to a mere enforcer. Furthermore, the so-ordered injunction saves neither the parties nor the court any time. If either party believes their agreement has been breached, they will only be back in the position of proving such breach. The court will not impose sanctions absent proof, which proof is the same that would show a breach of contract. Moreover, in this instance it appears that the parties' contract already provides for remedies duplicative of what the court likely would impose as sanctions. Civil contempt generally is used either to make whole a party injured by noncompliance with a court order, or to encourage compliance therewith. As such, civil contempt sanctions very often permit the offending party to forestall any punishment by curing its delinquency. Here, the civil contempt remedies likely would take the form of some award of the injured party's costs and fees, and perhaps damages, but not only would these have to be litigated, they are already provided for in the contract itself. To be sure, consent judgments are not uncommon in modern litigation, and consent judgments often include injunctive relief. But that is not what the court is presented with here. There is no judgment, or even the fulsome settlement agreement. The parties ask to keep their complete agreement private, but still use the public courts to enforce it. Accordingly, the court still declines to take on the duties of enforcing a remedy it had no hand in making and the propriety of which it has not reviewed. However, the court will extend the period in which the parties may move to reopen this action to September 15, 2025, which is long enough that should either party breach their mutual agreement, they may resume this action rather than commence a new one. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Omar A. Williams on 7/23/25. (Wagner, R) |
|
| Tuesday, April 01, 2025 | ||
| 39 | 39
motion
Reopen Case
Tue 04/01 5:17 PM
Joint MOTION to Reopen Case and for Reconsideration by United Rentals (North America), Inc., United Rentals, Inc..Responses due by 4/22/2025 (Pia, Gerald) |
|
| Thursday, March 27, 2025 | ||
| 38 | 38
order
Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Thu 03/27 1:50 PM
ORDER denying ECF No.37 , Motion for Entry of Stipulated Permanent Injunction; administratively closing case. The parties, apparently having entered into a settlement agreement, ask the court to so-order a permanent injunction to which they both have stipulated. The court is disinclined to give force of law to a contract between consenting parties, particularly where the court has not had occasion to review the merits of the original dispute and therefore cannot determine the reasonableness or enforceability of such contract. Nor is such approval necessary: the parties still may rely upon the usual means of contract enforcement. Finally, if the parties have settled betwixt themselves, there no longer is any case or controversy before the court, implicating questions of Article III standing and subject matter jurisdiction. For all these reasons, the court denies the motion. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court respectfully is asked to administratively close this case in accordance with Local Rule 41(b). Either party may move to reopen the case on or before April 25, 2024. If the parties wish to file a stipulation of dismissal, they may do so on or before April 25, 2024. The dates in this order may be extended for good cause upon a motion filed in accordance with Local Rule 7(b). If no stipulation of dismissal is filed by the deadline noted herein, the action will be deemed dismissed with prejudice without any further order of the court. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Omar A. Williams on 3/27/25. (Wagner, R) |
|
|
notice
Judicial Evaluation Program Survey
Thu 03/27 3:11 PM
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS SURVEY - FOR COUNSEL ONLY: The following link to the confidential survey requires you to log into CM/ECF for SECURITY purposes. Once in CM/ECF you will be prompted for the case number. Although you are receiving this survey through CM/ECF, it is hosted on an independent website called SurveyMonkey. Once in SurveyMonkey, the survey is located in a secure account. The survey is not docketed and it is not sent directly to the judge. To ensure anonymity, completed surveys are held up to 90 days before they are sent to the judge for review. We hope you will take this opportunity to participate, please click on this link: https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Dispatch.pl?survey (Lewis, D) |
||
| Friday, March 21, 2025 | ||
| 37 | 37
motion
Preliminary Injunction
Fri 03/21 3:25 PM
Consent MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Entry by United Rentals (North America), Inc., United Rentals, Inc..Responses due by 4/11/2025(Pia, Gerald) |
|
|
Att: 1
Text of Proposed Order Stipulated Permanent Injunction
|
||
| Thursday, June 13, 2024 | ||
| 36 | 36
notice
Notice of Appearance
Thu 06/13 11:21 AM
NOTICE of Appearance by Chrissy Dunn Dutton on behalf of Carroll Travis Tyler (Dutton, Chrissy) |
|
| 35 | 35
notice
Notice (Other)
Thu 06/13 11:19 AM
NOTICE by Carroll Travis Tyler of submission of Certificate of Good Standing for Chrissy Dunn Dutton (Dutton, Chrissy) |
|
| Friday, June 07, 2024 | ||
| 34 | 34
minutes
Status Conference
Fri 06/07 4:17 PM
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Robert A. Richardson: Telephonic Status Conference held on 6/7/2024. After conferring with the parties, it appears as though a settlement conference at this time is not likely to be productive. If the parties determine that a settlement conference is likely to be productive in the future, they are encouraged to reach out to Judge Richardson's chambers. Total time: 4 minutes. (Coleman, G) |
|
| Monday, June 03, 2024 | ||
| 33 | 33
utility
Calendar Entry
Mon 06/03 4:02 PM
NOTICE OF E-FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. Telephonic Status Conference set for 6/7/2024 at 3:30 PM before Judge Robert A. Richardson. (Coleman, G) |
|
| 32 | 32
order
Order
Mon 06/03 3:59 PM
ORDER: A second pre-settlement call is scheduled on 6/7/2024 at 3:30 PM. The parties have been sent an email with dial-in instructions. Signed by Judge Robert A. Richardson on 6/3/2024. (Coleman, G) |
|
| Thursday, May 23, 2024 | ||
| 31 | 31
minutes
Status Conference
Thu 05/23 3:58 PM
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Robert A. Richardson: Telephonic Pre Settlement Conference Call held on 5/23/2024. Total time: 22 minutes. (Fries, J.) |
|
| Friday, May 17, 2024 | ||
| 30 | 30
utility
Calendar Entry
Fri 05/17 1:22 PM
NOTICE OF E-FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. Telephonic Status Conference set for 5/23/2024 at 3:30 PM before Judge Robert A. Richardson. (Coleman, G) |
|
| 29 | 29
order
Order
Fri 05/17 1:21 PM
ORDER: A pre-settlement call with Judge Richardson is scheduled on 5/23/2024 at 3:30 PM. The parties will be sent an email with dial-in instructions. Signed by Judge Robert A. Richardson on 5/17/2024. (Coleman, G) |
|
| Thursday, May 16, 2024 | ||
| 28 | 28
order
Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge
Thu 05/16 9:09 AM
ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Robert A. Richardson for Settlement Conference. Signed by Judge Omar A. Williams on 5/16/24. (Velez, F) |
|
| Wednesday, May 15, 2024 | ||
| 27 | 27
order
Scheduling Order
Wed 05/15 3:27 PM
ORDER. The court thanks the parties for their respective Local Rule 26(f) Reports. See ECF Nos.25 and26 . Although the parties filed their own reports, review thereof reveals that they agree on most everything contained therein. Accordingly, the court hereby APPROVES and ADOPTS the agreed-upon deadlines. All discovery shall be completed on or before April 30, 2025, and all interim discovery deadlines hereby are incorporated by reference. All interim discovery deadlines may be amended by agreement of the parties without the court's approval provided those amendments do not delay the deadline for completion of all discovery. The parties disagreeing as to whether discovery shall be conducted in phases, the court hereby rules that discovery shall not be conducted in phases. Any motions for summary judgment shall be filed on or before May 30, 2025. The parties' joint trial memorandum shall be filed on or before June 15, 2025, if no dispositive motions are filed, or within the period set by the court upon its disposition of any dispositive motions that are filed. The court thereafter will set a jury selection date, and the parties should be prepared to proceed to trial on August 15, 2025. The parties having requested an early settlement conference, the Clerk of Court is asked, respectfully, to please assign a United States Magistrate Judge for that purpose. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Omar A. Williams on 5/15/24. (Wagner, R) |
|
|
utility
Set Deadlines/Hearings
Wed 05/15 4:45 PM
Set Deadlines: Discovery due by 4/30/2025; Dispositive Motions due by 5/30/2025; Joint Trial Memorandum due by 6/15/2025; Trial Ready Date 8/15/2025. (Velez, F) |
||
| Tuesday, May 14, 2024 | ||
| 26 | 26
misc
Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting
Tue 05/14 4:16 PM
REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Iannucci, Michael) |
|
| Monday, May 13, 2024 | ||
| 25 | 25
misc
Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting
Mon 05/13 3:44 PM
REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Pia, Gerald) |
|
| Wednesday, May 08, 2024 | ||
| 24 | 24
answer
Answer to Counterclaim
Wed 05/08 10:36 AM
ANSWER to21 Answer to Complaint, Counterclaim by United Rentals (North America), Inc., United Rentals, Inc..(Pia, Gerald) |
|
| Friday, April 26, 2024 | ||
| 23 | 23
order
Order on Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice
Fri 04/26 1:22 PM
ORDER granting22 MOTION for Attorney Chrissy Dunn Dutton to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice. Certificate of Good Standing due by 6/25/2024. Signed by Clerk on 4/26/2024. (Peterson, M) |
|
| Thursday, April 25, 2024 | ||
| 22 | 22
motion
Admission Pro Hac Vice
Thu 04/25 2:43 PM
MOTION for Attorney(s) Chrissy Dunn Dutton to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice (paid $200 PHV fee; receipt number ACTDC-7737483) by Carroll Travis Tyler. (Flanders, Craig) |
|
| Friday, April 19, 2024 | ||
| 21 | 21
answer
Answer to Complaint Counterclaim
Mon 04/22 9:12 AM
COUNTERCLAIM against United Rentals (North America), Inc., United Rentals, Inc. by Carroll Travis Tyler.(Pesta, J.) |
|
| Friday, April 12, 2024 | ||
| 20 | 20
notice
Notice of Appearance
Fri 04/12 12:07 PM
NOTICE of Appearance by Michael A Iannucci on behalf of Carroll Travis Tyler (Iannucci, Michael) |
|
| Thursday, April 11, 2024 | ||
|
order
Order on Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice
Thu 04/11 1:41 PM
ORDER granting18 MOTION for Attorney Michael A. Iannucci to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Clerk on 4/11/2024. (Peterson, M) |
||
| Tuesday, April 09, 2024 | ||
| 18 | 18
motion
Admission Pro Hac Vice
Tue 04/09 11:47 AM
MOTION for Attorney(s) Michael A. Iannucci to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice (paid $200 PHV fee; receipt number ACTDC-7716107) by Carroll Travis Tyler. (Flanders, Craig) |
|
| Monday, April 01, 2024 | ||
|
utility
Set Deadlines/Hearings
Mon 04/01 1:41 PM
Set Deadline: Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 5/12/2024. (Velez, F) |
||
| Friday, March 29, 2024 | ||
| 17 | 17
notice
Notice of Appearance
Fri 03/29 4:42 PM
NOTICE of Appearance by Craig M. Flanders on behalf of Carroll Travis Tyler (Flanders, Craig) |
|
| 16 | 16
answer
Answer to Complaint
Fri 03/29 4:32 PM
ANSWER to1 Complaint with Affirmative Defenses with Jury Demand by Carroll Travis Tyler.(Flanders, Craig) |
|
| Wednesday, March 06, 2024 | ||
| 15 | 15
service
Waiver of Service Executed
Wed 03/06 9:57 AM
WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed as to Carroll Travis Tyler waiver sent on 1/29/2024, answer due 3/29/2024 filed by United Rentals (North America), Inc.; United Rentals, Inc.. (Pia, Gerald) |
|
| Tuesday, January 16, 2024 | ||
|
order
Order on Motion for Extension of Time
Tue 01/16 10:36 AM
ORDER granting ECF No.13 , Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiffs shall serve Defendant the complaint on or before April 8, 2024. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Omar A. Williams on 1/16/24. (Wagner, Rebecca) |
||
| Monday, January 15, 2024 | ||
| 13 | 13
motion
Extension of Time
Mon 01/15 2:51 PM
Consent MOTION for Extension of Time until 04/08/2024 to Serve Complaint by United Rentals (North America), Inc., United Rentals, Inc.. (Pia, Gerald) |
|
| Thursday, November 09, 2023 | ||
| 12 | 12
2
pgs
service
Electronic Summons Issued
Thu 11/09 3:44 PM
ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and LR 4 as to *Carroll Travis Tyler* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *Gerald C. Pia, Jr.* *Roche Pia LLC* *4 Research Drive, Suite 402, PMB # 543-85* *Shelton, CT 06484*. (Peterson, M) |
|
| 11 | 11
order
Electronic Service Documents
Thu 11/09 3:43 PM
NOTICE TO COUNSEL/SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES : Counsel or self-represented parties initiating or removing this action are responsible for serving all parties with attached documents and copies of8 Electronic Filing Order,7 Order on Pretrial Deadlines,4 Notice of Appearance filed by United Rentals, Inc., United Rentals (North America), Inc.,10 Order,2 Notice of Appearance filed by United Rentals, Inc., United Rentals (North America), Inc.,3 Disclosure Statement filed by United Rentals, Inc., United Rentals (North America), Inc.,6 Disclosure Statement filed by United Rentals, Inc., United Rentals (North America), Inc., 5 Notice re: Disclosure Statement,1 Complaint filed by United Rentals, Inc., United Rentals (North America), Inc.,9 Protective Order Signed by Clerk on 11/9/2023. (Peterson, M) |
|
| 6 | 6
misc
Disclosure Statement
Thu 11/09 10:35 AM
Supplemental Disclosure Statement by United Rentals (North America), Inc., United Rentals, Inc. identifying Corporate Parent United Rentals, Inc. for United Rentals (North America), Inc.. (Pia, Gerald) |
|
| Wednesday, November 08, 2023 | ||
| 10 | 10
1
pgs
order
Order
Thu 11/09 3:41 PM
Standing Order to Litigants Regarding Letters to the Court Signed by Judge Omar A. Williams on 11/08/2023. (Peterson, M) |
|
| 9 | 9
order
Protective Order
Thu 11/09 3:40 PM
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Omar A. Williams on 11/08/2023. (Peterson, M) |
|
| 8 | 8
order
Electronic Filing Order
Thu 11/09 3:39 PM
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Omar A. Williams on 11/08/2023. (Peterson, M) |
|
| 7 | 7
1
pgs
order
Order on Pretrial Deadlines
Thu 11/09 3:38 PM
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 1/7/2024. Discovery due by 5/9/2024. Dispositive Motions due by 6/13/2024. Signed by Clerk on 11/08/2023. (Peterson, M) |
|
| 4 | 4
notice
Notice of Appearance
Wed 11/08 1:48 PM
NOTICE of Appearance by Brian C. Roche on behalf of United Rentals (North America), Inc., United Rentals, Inc. (Roche, Brian) |
|
| 3 | 3
misc
Disclosure Statement
Wed 11/08 1:39 PM
Disclosure Statement by United Rentals (North America), Inc., United Rentals, Inc. identifying Corporate Parent United Rentals, Inc. for United Rentals (North America), Inc.. (Pia, Gerald) |
|
| 2 | 2
notice
Notice of Appearance
Wed 11/08 1:33 PM
NOTICE of Appearance by Gerald C. Pia, Jr on behalf of United Rentals (North America), Inc., United Rentals, Inc. (Pia, Gerald) |
|
| 1 | 1
24
pgs
cmp
Complaint
Wed 11/08 1:32 PM
COMPLAINT against Carroll Travis Tyler ( Filing fee $402 receipt number ACTDC-7542983.), filed by United Rentals, Inc., United Rentals (North America), Inc..(Pia, Gerald) |
|
|
service
Request to Issue Summons
Wed 11/08 1:40 PM
Request for Clerk to issue summons as to Carroll Travis Tyler. (Pia, Gerald) |
||
|
notice
Notice re: Disclosure Statement
Wed 11/08 3:25 PM
Notice: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, a disclosure statement must be filed with a party's first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the Court and must be supplemented if any required information changes during the case. Signed by Clerk on 11/8/2023.(Perez, J.) |
||
|
utility
Add and Terminate Judges
Wed 11/08 4:18 PM
Judge Omar A. Williams and Judge S. Dave Vatti added. (Freberg, B) |
||