Michigan Court Denied Motion in Noncompete Case
A judge ruled that discovery must continue before a decision on an 18-month noncompetition agreement is reached.
Updated on Oct. 14, 2026 in Remote Work
Live Poll
Should employers be allowed to enforce noncompetition agreements in employment contracts?
A Michigan court has denied a motion for summary disposition regarding a disputed 18-month noncompetition provision involving Copper Hill Inc. and former employees. The ruling allows the legal process to move forward as the court requires more evidence to authenticate the employment agreement.
Why it matters
The decision keeps the case alive while highlighting the strict requirements for enforcing long-term employment covenants in Michigan. Employers must be able to provide a signed writing to satisfy the statute of frauds when agreements exceed one year in duration.
The dispute centers on an 18-month noncompetition agreement that falls under MCL 566.132(1)(a) because it cannot be performed within one year. The court has not reached a final determination on whether the contract terms are enforceable.
The players
Copper Hill Inc.
The company is the plaintiff in this litigation regarding a post-employment noncompetition provision.
Brandi Stoddard
She is one of the defendants involved in the motion for summary disposition.
Nine Nineteen Trade LLC
The entity is a defendant in the lawsuit brought by Copper Hill Inc.
The details
Brandi Stoddard and Nine Nineteen Trade LLC filed for summary disposition against claims brought by Copper Hill Inc. The court denied this motion without prejudice under MCR 2.116(C)(10), citing the early stage of discovery and the need for further evidence regarding the agreement's formation.
Timeline
October 14, 2026: The court issued the ruling denying summary disposition.
Market Landscape
The ruling follows the requirements of Michigan Compiled Laws 566.132(1)(a), which mandates that contracts not performable within one year must be evidenced by a signed writing. This procedural hurdle impacts how companies protect trade secrets and manage employee transitions in a competitive market.
Employees and employers in Michigan should note that noncompete agreements lasting longer than one year face significant scrutiny under the statute of frauds. This ruling underscores the necessity for companies to maintain clear, authenticated documentation to support their legal claims.
The takeaway
This case highlights the importance of maintaining formal, signed records for any employment contracts that extend beyond a one-year period. Organizations should ensure their employment agreements are properly documented to avoid potential challenges in court.
What happens next
The defendants are permitted to renew their motion for summary disposition once further discovery regarding the authentication and execution of the agreement is completed.
Further reading
Learn more about legal precedents in the Michigan Remote Work section.
Source note: This article includes information reported by Michigan Lawyers Weekly.
Live Poll
Should employers be allowed to enforce noncompetition agreements in employment contracts?
