Skip to main content

Leslie's Poolmart, Inc. v. Blue Wave Pool Supply of Memphis, LLC

Tenn. Ct. App.August 6, 2018No. W2017-01894-COA-R3-CV
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Chief Judge D. Michael Swiney
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
Appeal from trial court judgment; appellate court affirmed dismissal with prejudice

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

Trial court dismissed Leslie's Poolmart's complaint against Blue Wave Pool Supply and its founders/operators with prejudice. The appellate court affirmed, finding in favor of defendants on claims including breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of trade secrets, and inducement to breach contract.

Excerpt

This appeal concerns an employee who made preparations to start a competing business while still employed by his old company. Todd Heins ("Heins") was a manager working for Leslie's Poolmart, Inc. ("Leslie's"), a nationwide pool supply business, at its Bartlett Hills location in the Memphis, Tennessee area. Jay Karcher ("Karcher"), while a customer in Leslie's Bartlett Hills store, approached Heins one day while he was working with an idea about starting a new pool supply business. Heins was intrigued and followed up with Karcher to found Blue Wave Pool Supply of Memphis, LLC ("Blue Wave"). Heins resigned from Leslie's before Blue Wave opened for business. Heins' friend and Leslie's employee Chad Pitcock ("Pitcock") also resigned and went to work for Blue Wave. Leslie's sued Blue Wave, Heins, Pitcock, and Karcher ("Defendants," collectively) in the Chancery Court for Shelby County ("the Trial Court") for, among other things, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of trade secrets, and inducement to breach contract. After a trial, the Trial Court found in favor of Defendants and dismissed Leslie's complaint with prejudice. Leslie's appeals. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** This case involved Todd Heins, a manager at Leslie's Poolmart (a nationwide pool supply company) in the Memphis area. While still working for Leslie's, Heins was approached by a customer, Jay Karcher, who proposed starting a competing pool supply business. Heins became interested in this opportunity and began making preparations for the new venture while still employed. Leslie's Poolmart later sued both Heins and the new company (Blue Wave Pool Supply), claiming he broke his employment contract, violated his duty to the company, stole trade secrets, and encouraged others to break their contracts. **The Court's Decision** Both the trial court and appeals court ruled in favor of Heins and Blue Wave Pool Supply. The courts dismissed all of Leslie's claims, including breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, trade secret theft, and inducing others to break contracts. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling suggests that employees may have some protection when planning to start competing businesses, even while still employed. However, workers should be extremely cautious about such situations, as the specific facts matter greatly. The outcome doesn't give employees blanket permission to prepare competing ventures while working—each case depends on the particular circumstances and any agreements signed.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.