Hayes Resumes Jobot Judgment Collection Efforts

Hayes Medical Staffing is renewing its effort to collect the $6,037,532 judgment it won against Jobot in December 2025 in one of the largest staffing industry non-compete verdicts on record (read the story here). On September 3, 2026, Hayes asked the federal court in Fort Lauderdale for permission to register the judgment in other federal districts, as required to pursue collection there. The first target is the Central District of California, where Jobot has its principal place of business. Jobot is opposing the request, and the court has not yet ruled.

Hayes needs permission to pursue Jobot's California assets

Under federal law, a money judgment can easily be registered in another federal district once it is final on appeal. However, Jobot's appeal to the Eleventh Circuit is still pending. At this stage registration in other states requires permission of the court "for good cause shown."

Hayes says that the good cause is clear. Jobot appealed but never posted a supersedeas bond to delay enforcement of the judgement. Both the district court and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals refused to put collection on hold. According to Hayes, Jobot has no assets in Florida to reach, hence the need for the right to seek Jobot assets in California.

Hayes's first collection effort was a writ of garnishment on Jobot's PNC Bank account, issued in March. In April, Jobot's lender, Sandton Capital, intervened in the case. Sandton asserted a first-priority security interest in all of Jobot's assets, which is standard for any company's primary lender. Hayes had to admit that Sandton's interest as a pre-existing secured creditor was senior to its own rights as a judgment creditor, and the garnishment writ was withdrawn.

Jobot's response

Jobot filed an opposition memorandum on September 17. It is arguing that good cause requires more than the existence of assets in another state. Jobot also asserts that Hayes has offered no evidence that Jobot is hiding or moving assets and that enforcement in several districts at once would be a heavy burden while its appeal is pending. As a fallback, it proposes periodic asset disclosures instead of registration. The brief states:

"There is no evidence that Defendants are insolvent, that they are winding down operations, or that they lack the ability to satisfy the judgment if they do not prevail on appeal."

However, this contrasts with Jobot's position in back March when its attorneys argued to the Eleventh Circuit that without a stay, it would "have no choice but to go out of business and file for bankruptcy."

New lawyers for Jobot

On September 8, Jobot's trial and appellate counsel, Vedder Price, moved to withdraw from representing Jobot and the two former Hayes recruiters, Amy Eichelberg and Scott Simon. The firm cited "irreconcilable differences" with its clients, and they all consented to the withdrawal. The next day, Allen Katz of Quarles & Brady appeared as new counsel for all three.

Jobot's appeal

Jobot's appeal of the judgment remains pending in the Eleventh Circuit (Case No. 26-10070). There, Jobot argues that the trial court found breaches of the noncompete agreements without evidence of direct competition. It also challenges the tortious interference finding and argues that the $6 million damages award is speculative. Until the Eleventh Circuit rules, the judgment stands.

Hayes's motion and Jobot's opposition are attached below.