IN MOTION ORTHOPAEDICS WEST, INC. v. CMIEL, et al

2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
IN MOTION ORTHOPAEDICS WEST, INC., 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	)
)
No. 1:26-cv-00296-TWP-MJD
)
NOAH CMIEL, 	)
ENOVIS CORPORATION, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO")
(Filing No. 5), filed by Plaintiff IN Motion Orthopaedics West, Inc., ("IN Motion"). The Defendants
Noah Cmiel ("Cmiel") and Enovis Corporation ("Enovis") have not been served or given the ability
to respond. Based upon IN Motion's affidavit (Filing No. 6) and its counsel's declaration (Filing
No. 20), the Court concludes that IN Motion has met its burden by demonstrating entitlement to
entry of a TRO against the Defendants. For the reasons explained in this Order, the TRO is
granted.
I. 	REASONS FOR ISSUANCE UNDER FRCP 65(b)(2), (d)(1)(A):
A court may grant an order pursuant to an ex parte request only under extremely limited
circumstances. Am. Can Co. v. Mansukhani, 742 F.2d 314, 321 (7th Cir.1984). Under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure Rule 65(b), the court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice
to the adverse party or its attorney only if "specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show
that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can
be heard in opposition [,] and "the movant's attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and
the reasons why it should not be required." Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A)-(B) (internal subdivisions omitted).
Case 1:26-cv-00296-TWP-MJD Document 14 Filed 02/13/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
IN Motion has submitted a verified Complaint (Filing No. 1). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
65(b)(1)(B), its counsel has certified that "immediate judicial intervention is required because
Defendants have ignored prior written warnings and are currently intentionally engaging in
prohibited competition and solicitation of IN Motion customers", and "have engaged in the active
misappropriation of IN Motion’s trade secrets and the solicitation of key customers". (Filing No. 5
at 3). Further, on February 3, 2026, Defendant Enovis’s representative explicitly stated to IN
Motion’s agent that they were “not worried” about the restrictive covenants because “there is always
a loophole.” Id. IN Motion's counsel asserts that "this admission demonstrates a bad-faith intent to
circumvent legal obligations" and providing advance notice of this filing "would afford Defendants
the opportunity to accelerate their solicitation." Id.
The Seventh Circuit uses a two-step analysis to assess whether preliminary injunctive relief
is warranted. See Girl Scouts of Manitou Council, Inc. v. Girl Scouts of USA, Inc., 549 F.3d 1079,
1085–86 (7th Cir. 2008). This analysis is the same to determine if a TRO is warranted. Gray v. Orr,
4 F. Supp. 3d 984, 989 n.2 (N.D. Ill. 2013). To warrant a TRO, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) a
likelihood of success on the merits; (2) no adequate remedy at law exists; and (3) plaintiff will suffer
irreparable harm if the TRO is not granted. See Incredible Techs., Inc. v. Virtual Techs., Inc., 400
F.3d 1007, 1011 (7th Cir. 2005). If these elements are satisfied, the Court must then balance the harm
to the plaintiff if the restraining order is denied against the harm to the defendant if the restraining
order is granted. Id. The greater the movant's likelihood of success on the merits, "the less strong a
showing" the movant "must make that the balance of harm is in its favor." Foodcomm Int'l v. Barry,
328 F.3d 300, 303 (7th Cir. 2003).
IN Motion has demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits. The evidence
indicates that Defendant Noah Cmiel breached his valid non-competition and non-solicitation
obligations on February 11, 2026, and thereafter, by covering a surgical case for competitor Enovis
Case 1:26-cv-00296-TWP-MJD Document 14 Filed 02/13/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Corporation (“Enovis”) at Rush University Medical Center for IN Motion’s customer, Dr. Omar
Behery. Further, the evidence indicates Enovis intentionally induced this breach, with its agent
stating they were “not worried” about the contract because “there is always a loophole.”
IN Motion has demonstrated that it will suffer immediate and irreparable injury, loss, and
damage if this Order is not issued. Specifically, Defendants are diverting IN Motion’s customer
relationships and using IN Motion’s confidential pricing and surgeon preference information.
The Court finds that this conduct threatens to permanently sever IN Motion’s customer
relationships and damage the goodwill IN Motion has cultivated in the Territories set forth in the
Agreement with Cmiel.
IN Motion has averred that Monetary damages would be inadequate to compensate it
because the loss of these customer relationships, the loss of its competitive advantages, and the
resulting damage to its reputation are difficult to quantify and would be effectively permanent.
The harm to IN Motion (permanent loss of customers and trade secrets) far outweighs any
harm to Defendants. Cmiel’s “harm” is entirely self-inflicted and limited to the contract terms he
voluntarily signed. An injunction will not prevent Cmiel from working. Rather, it will merely
prevent him from working for a competitor within the specific territory he agreed to avoid. He
remains free to work in other territories or industries. In contrast, Enovis will suffer no legitimate
harm. It is free to compete at Rush University Medical Center using any of its other sales
representatives. It is simply prohibited from using Cmiel to do so in violation of his contract.
The Court finds that this Order should issue without notice to the adverse party because
immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party
can be heard in opposition. Specifically, Defendants’ expressed intent to exploit a “loophole” and
their active presence in the operating room at Rush University Medical Center suggests that notice
would likely precipitate an acceleration of the harm, a destruction of evidence, or evasion of the
Case 1:26-cv-00296-TWP-MJD Document 14 Filed 02/13/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
Court’s jurisdiction before a hearing could be held.
II. 	TERMS OF THE ORDER AND ACTS RESTRAINED UNDER FRCP 65(d)(1)(B)–(C)
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
(1) 	IN Motion’s Motion is GRANTED;
(2) 	Defendant 	Noah 	Cmiel 	is 	hereby 	ENJOINED 	and 	RESTRAINED 	from
undertaking any of the following acts:
a. 	Directly or indirectly engaging in the sale, support, promotion, or solicitation of
orders to the clients/customers of IN Motion for any orthopedic products that are
competitive with IN Motion’s products within the geographic territory set forth
Attachment 2 to the Agreement (filed under seal), which specifically includes Rush
University Medical Center;
b. 	Soliciting, contacting, or attempting to divert any person or entity who is a customer
of IN Motion within said Territory (as listed in Attachment 2 to the Agreement filed
under seal), specifically including Dr. Omar Behery; and
c. 	Using, disclosing, or transmitting any of IN Motion’s Confidential Information or
Trade Secrets, specifically including pricing strategies, profit margins, customer
lists, and surgeon preference cards.
(3) 	Defendant Enovis Corporation is hereby ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from
undertaking any of the following acts:
a. 	Employing, contracting with, or utilizing Noah Cmiel to cover surgical cases,
solicit business, or sell the following products: 	hip products, knee products,
extremity products or bone cement and accessories, VELYS products (Attachment
1 to Agreement filed under seal); and
b. 	Inducing Noah Cmiel to breach his continuing contractual duties to IN Motion or
to disclose IN Motion’s Confidential Information.
(4) 	The eighteen (18) month restrictive covenant periods set forth in the Sales
Representative Agreement are hereby TOLLED effective immediately and shall not
run during the pendency of this Order.
(5) 	Cmiel and Enovis shall immediately preserve and protect all emails, texts, and other
documents in their possession relative to Noah Cmiel’s hiring, preserve and protect
all customer lists, contact information, or other documents referring to or relating
to IN Motion’s customers and contacts with same by Noah Cmiel at any time, and
to preserve and protect all electronic data relating to Cmiel’s interview prior to
Case 1:26-cv-00296-TWP-MJD Document 14 Filed 02/13/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
hiring, hiring, employment, and all documents relating, referring, or otherwise
concerning the Sales Agreement and non-compete/non-solicitation provisions
contained therein at any time.
III. 	PERSONS BOUND UNDER FRCP 65(d)(2)
This Order binds only the following who receive actual notice of it by personal service or
otherwise:
(1) The parties (Plaintiff IN Motion Orthopaedics West, Inc., Defendant Noah Cmiel, and
Defendant Enovis Corporation);
(2) The parties’ officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and
(3) Other persons who are in active concert or participation with anyone described in Rule
65(d)(2)(A) or (B).
IV. 	PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
(1) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), IN Motion shall post security in
the amount of $5,000.00 with the Clerk of the Court forthwith.
(2) This Order shall be promptly filed in the Clerk’s office and entered in the record.
(3) IN Motion shall effect service of the Summons, Verified Complaint, Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order, and this Order upon Defendants forthwith.
V. 	DATE OF ISSUANCE AND EXPIRATION
ISSUED at 5:00 p.m. on February 13, 2026.
This Order shall expire at the same hour on the 14th day following issuance, specifically on
February 27, 2026, unless before that time the Court, for good cause, extends it for a like period or
the adverse party consents to a longer extension. The reasons for any extension must be entered in
the record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 	2/13/2026
Case 1:26-cv-00296-TWP-MJD Document 14 Filed 02/13/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
Distribution:
Stephen W. Heil
CRAY HUBER HORSTMAN HEIL & VAN AUSDAL LLC
swh@crayhuber.com
and
Stephen W. Heil
CRAY HUBER HORSTMAN HEIL & VAN AUSDAL
LLC
303 West Madision Street
Suite 2200
Chicago, IL 60606
Case 1:26-cv-00296-TWP-MJD Document 14 Filed 02/13/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>