U.S. - California
>>> Applicable Statute:CA Bus. & Prof. Code Section 16600 et seq.
Choice of Law
2019.10.15 Delaware Choice-of-Law Provisions in Restrictive Covenant Agreements. This excellent, substantive blog entry which explains why this is the current interplay between Delaware Courts and California law:
2019.06.06 Enforce Non-Compete Forfeiture Provisions through ERISA Top Hat Plans. Here is an excerpt from Seyforth's alert, which cites and aptly discusses long-standing California authority:
2018.12 Litigation Proceeds re Non-Solicitation Provision. See Barker v Insight Global, in which a N.D.CA court rejected an employer's motion to dismiss, and based that on an amended complaint alleging --
2012.Feb.8 California Law Rules ... in Choice-of-Law Dispute involving Employee Classification (9th Circuit). For employers outside California, the 9th Circuit's decision in this worker classification case provides a heads-up for the governing law to expect in choice of law disputes involving California-based employees. Here are two quotes from unrelated parts of Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics:
”Duty of Loyalty
2011.Mar.28 No Claim for Employee's Breach of Loyalty. An employer may not sue its former employees solely for breach of loyalty, but is limited to claims asserting breach of fiduciary duty. See Mattel v MGA Entertainment, C.D. CA (case # 2:04-cv-09049), holding that "non-fiduciary employees owe no duty of loyalty to their employers," and explaining that --
ERISA Preemption of CA Non-compete Law (16600) exists when an ERISA plan provides for benefit forfeitures for violation of non-compete: Clark v Lauren Young Tire, 9th Cir.1987.
Copyright © Joseph Poerio. All rights reserved.