Dex Imaging, LLC v. Impact Networking Ohio, LLC and Kenneth Vanden Haute: A Non-Compete Showdown in Northern Ohio

On March 17, 2025, Dex Imaging, a Florida-based office technology and managed print services provider, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against its former executive vice-president, Kenneth Vanden Haute, and his new employer, Impact Networking Ohio, LLC. 

Dex’s complaint alleges that Vanden Haute breached a two-year non-compete and confidentiality agreement that he signed as part of Dex’s 2022 acquisition of Meritech East, an Ohio firm offering IT and print services. The case, docketed as No. 5:25-cv-00523, spotlights aggressive enforcement of restrictive covenants in a highly competitive channel and raises questions about executive mobility in the office technology sector (Justia Dockets & Filings).

Background and Parties

Dex Imaging, founded in 1997 and headquartered in Tampa, Florida, has grown into one of the nation’s largest independent office technology dealerships, offering copiers, printers, managed IT, and workflow solutions. In September 2022, Dex acquired Meritech East, based in Akron, Ohio. As part of that merger, Vanden Haute, then Meritech’s executive vice-president and a minority shareholder, agreed to a confidentiality and non-compete covenant prohibiting him from soliciting Dex customers, recruiting Dex staff, or competing in its territory for two years post-closing (The Recycler).

Impact Networking Ohio is the regional arm of Impact Networking, an Illinois-based managed IT services company. In early 2025, Impact announced Vanden Haute as president of its new Ohio office. Dex alleges that Vanden Haute never honored the non-compete, instead immediately leveraging Dex’s confidential data—customer lists, pricing strategies, and supplier contacts—to solicit overlapping accounts and recruit former Dex employees.

Allegations and Claims

At the heart of Dex’s complaint are two core claims: breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets. The suit contends that Vanden Haute, even before his formal resignation in January 2025, coordinated with Impact’s leadership to set up a competing operation. Dex asserts that he “wasted no time in actively disregarding” his restrictive covenants by using proprietary customer data—such as pricing tiers and supplier agreements with manufacturers like Kyocera—to divert business to Impact Networking Ohio (The Recycler).

In addition, Dex seeks remedies under the Defend Trade Secrets Act and Ohio’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act, alleging that Vanden Haute and Impact misappropriated proprietary information. The complaint describes detailed spreadsheets, client proposals, and pricing models as trade-secret materials. Dex requests a preliminary and permanent injunction preventing further use or disclosure of its information, disgorgement of profits, compensatory and punitive damages, and an extension of the non-compete period by up to 18 months.

Procedural Posture

Following the complaint’s filing, Dex promptly moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. In early April 2025, Impact and Vanden Haute secured a two-week extension—until May 9, 2025—to file their formal response, signaling that they are mounting a defense (Action Intell). Common defenses in non-compete litigation include challenging the agreement’s geographic scope, its reasonableness under Ohio law, and whether the restrictive covenant is necessary to protect legitimate business interests without imposing undue hardship.

As of mid-May, no substantive briefing on the injunction motion had been made public. The court’s resolution of preliminary injunctive relief will likely hinge on whether Dex can demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm absent relief.

Industry Context and Implications

Non-compete enforcement has become a flashpoint in technology and service industries, with companies seeking to protect customer relationships and intellectual property while former executives push back against mobility restrictions. In the office technology channel—which blends hardware sales, supplies, servicing, and managed IT—the stakes are high: client loyalty often rests on long-standing relationships and deep familiarity with complex workflows.

For executives departing under non-competes, the Dex Imaging suit underscores the importance of carefully negotiating post-employment restrictions. Impact Networking Ohio, by recruiting a senior executive still subject to covenants, risks significant liability if the court deems its conduct knowing inducement of breach. Conversely, a successful defense could limit the enforceability of broad non-compete clauses in Ohio, fostering greater labor mobility.

Several recent Ohio decisions have scrutinized non-compete agreements for reasonableness in duration and geographic reach. Under Ohio Revised Code § 4733.36, covenants must be no broader than necessary to protect an employer’s goodwill, trade secrets, or confidential information. Courts will weigh whether Dex’s interests outweigh the public policy favoring open competition and individual freedom to work.

Broader Trends in Restrictive Covenant Litigation

Across the United States, legislative and judicial scrutiny of non-competes is rising. In early 2024, the Federal Trade Commission proposed rules to ban most non-compete clauses nationwide, a move countered by industry associations citing the need to protect intellectual property and investments in sales training. Meanwhile, states such as California and Illinois have long prohibited non-competes outright or confined them to narrow circumstances. Ohio occupies a middle ground, permitting reasonable covenants but requiring court scrutiny of their fairness.

In technology services, enforcement actions often mirror those in software and biotech sectors, where trade-secret misappropriation claims dovetail with non-competes. The Dex Imaging dispute typifies a “mega-dealer” battle in which rival firms seek to maintain territorial exclusivity and defend decades of customer relationships.

Outlook and Next Steps

The impact of this lawsuit will unfold in several phases. First, the court’s ruling on preliminary injunctions will determine whether Impact and Vanden Haute can use Dex’s information pending trial. Second, the parties may engage in discovery on the extent of alleged misappropriation, including forensic analysis of digital files and emails. Third, summary judgment motions could address contract enforceability and trade-secret definitions under Ohio law.

For copier dealers, managed services firms, and sales executives, the case serves as a cautionary tale: restrictive covenants must be narrowly tailored, and departures to competitors require careful legal review. A precedent favoring Dex could embolden other national players to aggressively police non-competes, while a decision for Impact might encourage challenges to broad post-employment restrictions.

Given the procedural posture, a full trial could be six to twelve months away, barring settlement. Confidential discussions often intensify once discovery costs mount, and parties may negotiate a licensing-type resolution or an agreed extension of the non-compete. Should the case proceed to trial, it will test Ohio’s balance between fostering innovation through employee mobility and safeguarding legitimate business interests.

As of May 2025, the Dex Imaging v. Impact Networking Ohio lawsuit remains a developing story in the office technology landscape. Its outcome will resonate not only in legal circles but across a sales channel where customer loyalty and proprietary know-how are paramount.

Sources:

1. “Dex Imaging, LLC v. Vanden Haute, et al.” Justia Dockets & Filings.
   https://dockets.justia.com/docket/ohio/ohndce/5%3A2025cv00523/315297 (Justia Dockets & Filings)

2. “Dex Imaging sues Impact Networking” The Recycler, March 21, 2025.
   https://www.therecycler.com/posts/dex-imaging-sues-impact-networking/ (The Recycler)

3. “DEX Imaging Sues Impact Networking Ohio and Its President” Actionable Intelligence, Inc., March 20, 2025.
   https://www.action-intell.com/2025/03/20/dex-imaging-sues-impact-networking-ohio-and-its-president/ (Action Intell)