JR Automation Technologies, a Hitachi-owned industrial automation company based in Michigan, has filed a wave of non-compete lawsuits in 2025 against more than a dozen former employees, asking the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to enforce non-competition and non-solicitation clauses tucked inside equity agreements the workers signed years earlier. The former employees are pushing back hard, arguing that JR Automation is not even a party to the contracts it is trying to enforce and that departing workers were told directly they were not bound by any non-compete.
The Five Cases and Who Is Being Sued
Between April and June 2025, JR Automation filed five separate suits, all in the Southern District of New York, all classified as diversity contract disputes, and all built on what court filings describe as “substantially identical” complaints. The company is represented by Varnum LLP and Riker Danzig. Several defendants are represented by Miller Johnson and Bloch & White LLP.
- J.R. Automation Technologies, LLC v. Cook et al. (1:25-cv-03417), originally naming seven defendants. Tim Cook, John Rokus, Kevin Wilson, and Frank Lazowski were terminated from the case in September 2025, leaving Eric Bert, Carlos Cruz, and David Macphail.
- J.R. Automation Technologies, LLC v. McIllwain et al. (1:25-cv-03418), against Scott Beute, Brad Bush, Gerald Halford, Tim McIllwain, and Mitch Veldheer.
- J.R. Automation Technologies, LLC v. Lowell et al. (1:25-cv-03419), against Vince Lowell and Ben Garvelink.
- J.R. Automation Technologies, LLC v. Sarchet et al. (1:25-cv-04945), filed June 12, 2025.
- J.R. Automation Technologies, LLC v. Holstege (1:25-cv-04946), filed June 12, 2025, against Kurt Holstege.
The defendants moved in September 2025 to consolidate the five cases, arguing the overlapping legal issues risked inconsistent rulings and wasted judicial effort. Judge Arun Subramanian terminated the consolidation motion in the McIllwain case on September 30, 2025, and a similar order followed in the Lowell case on October 17, 2025. The Lowell case is before Judge Lewis J. Liman. The Cook, McIllwain, and Holstege cases sit before Judge Subramanian after reassignments during 2025.
What the Former Employees Actually Signed
Each lawsuit turns on a document called a Management Incentive Unit Agreement. These agreements gave selected employees a profit-sharing interest in the company, a form of equity-like compensation common at private equity-backed businesses. In exchange for the units, employees accepted restrictive covenants limiting their ability to work for competitors or solicit clients and coworkers after leaving.
The structure carries a built-in penalty. In a related Delaware matter involving a similar arrangement, a court filing described how all incentive units, vested or not, could be forfeited entirely if an employee breached the restrictive covenants. The forfeiture mechanism sits alongside the injunctive and damages remedies JR Automation is now seeking.
The Standing Problem: Who Actually Owns the Contract
The most distinctive defense is that JR Automation Technologies, LLC is not a party to the agreements at all. According to the defendants, the Management Incentive Unit Agreements were signed with “J.R. Technology Holdings, LLC,” described in filings as JR Automation’s former grandparent entity. When Hitachi acquired JR Automation in April 2019 for $1.425 billion from funds managed by Crestview Partners, the defendants argue, those agreements were never formally assigned to the new corporate structure.
If the court accepts that argument, the enforcement campaign collapses at the threshold. A plaintiff cannot sue on a contract it does not own, and no amount of proof about breach or damages fills that gap.
“We Asked, and We Were Told No”
The defendants also say the company itself told them they were free to leave. According to defense filings, departing employees who asked whether they were bound by non-competition restrictions were “uniformly told, ‘no'” by JR Automation. If a court credits that account, the company’s own representations could support a release or estoppel defense, even assuming the agreements were valid and properly held by the plaintiff.
Overbreadth Under Delaware Law
On the substance of the restrictions, the defendants argue the non-competition provisions are overbroad and unenforceable. The agreements are governed by Delaware law, not New York law, and Delaware courts have historically been more receptive to restrictive covenants tied to equity transactions than to those in ordinary employment contracts. The covenants still have to be reasonable in scope, however, and the defendants contend these are not.
The Delaware-law choice, combined with the equity-compensation context, keeps the dispute outside the frameworks most readers associate with non-competes. The unresolved question of whether the 2019 Hitachi acquisition severed the link between the agreements and the entity now suing is an unusual wrinkle that does not map cleanly onto standard non-compete case law.
Where the Cases Stand
The central fight right now is at the pleading stage. Across multiple cases, defendants filed motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). JR Automation responded by amending its complaints rather than defending the originals, and the defendants then filed renewed motions to dismiss.
In the McIllwain case, defendants moved to dismiss on October 3, 2025. JR Automation filed an amended complaint on October 28, 2025. A renewed motion to dismiss followed on November 18, 2025, with the defendants’ reply brief filed on January 16, 2026. The Holstege case followed the same rhythm: a first amended complaint on October 29, 2025, a renewed motion to dismiss on November 18, 2025, and a reply on January 16, 2026. In the Cook case, briefing on a motion to dismiss the second and third amended complaints closed with a reply on January 16, 2026.
As of mid-2026, no motion has been decided, no case has reached trial, and no settlements or dismissals have been publicly recorded. In the Lowell case, July 2025 filings indicated the parties were discussing either a resolution or a consensual transfer of venue to the Western District of Michigan, closer to JR Automation’s headquarters and to where many of the defendants appear to live. An initial pretrial conference in that case was adjourned from July to August 2025.
The pending motions to dismiss will likely decide whether this litigation moves forward as a coordinated enforcement campaign or unwinds on the standing and threshold arguments the former employees have raised.