⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Ninth Circuit considers what an insurance broker may do after leaving his employer for a rival firm. In 2025, Jason Barrios left AssuredPartners to join Sequel, contacted former clients, and continued serving clients who moved their business. AssuredPartners sued to enforce an agreement restricting his dealings with clients for eighteen months after he left. A non-solicitation clause limits approaching clients for their business; a non-servicing clause can also restrict serving clients who approach the broker on their own. Barrios also had a separate role with DeliverRE, a captive insurance program, while employed by AssuredPartners. In broad terms, captive insurance lets a business or group cover its risks through an insurer it owns. His separate client relationships are central to the dispute over how the restrictions apply. The district court denied a preliminary injunction, a temporary court order while the lawsuit continues. Even a likely contract breach does not automatically justify that relief: the court must consider whether harm is likely that a later remedy, such as money damages, cannot adequately repair. The appeal concerns that refusal, not a final judgment on all claims. Michael Elkon, for AssuredPartners, will seek enforcement of the restrictions to protect the company's client relationships. Gaurav Bobby Kalra, for Barrios and Sequel, will defend the denial, emphasizing the separate business role, client choice, and the availability of damages.

AssuredPartners of Arizona, LLC v. Sequel Insurance Services, Inc., et al. (No. 26-1773) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 28, 2026.