Despite California’s prohibition against non-compete agreements, a federal court in the Eastern District of California recently ruled that a California resident may be subject to the non-compete covenant in his employment agreement due to a provision in the agreement identifying Indiana as the parties’ choice of forum and that state’s law as the parties’ choice … Continue Reading
We recently blogged about Governor Brown signing S.B. 1241, which is now codified as Section 925 of the California Labor Code. The law, which affects venue and choice of law provisions in agreements entered into as a condition of employment, will begin applying to agreements entered into, modified, or extended beginning on January 1, 2017. … Continue Reading
In recent years, some employers doing business in the Golden State have required their employees to sign arbitration and employment agreements that require the employee to sue or arbitrate in – or under the law of – another state. After January 1, 2017, this practice will be illegal unless the employee was represented by legal … Continue Reading
Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics Corp., 667 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir. 2012) Fernando Ruiz and similarly situated drivers filed a class action against Affinity alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and California law for failure to pay overtime, failure to pay wages, improper charges for workers’ compensation insurance and unfair business practices. To work … Continue Reading
Narayan v. EGL, Inc., 616 F.3d 895 (2010) Mohit Narayan and two other drivers for EGL (a global transportation, supply chain management and information services company headquartered in Texas) were California residents who provided services to EGL pursuant to independent contractor agreements that contained a Texas choice-of-law provision. Narayan and the other drivers filed a … Continue Reading
Intershop Communications AG v. Superior Court, 104 Cal. App. 4th 191 (2002) Frank Martinez, a California resident, sued his former employer, Intershop Communications, Inc., and its German parent company for breach of a stock options exchange agreement. The exchange agreement contained a choice-of-law (German law) and forum-selection clause (Hamburg, Germany). The trial court denied Intershop’s … Continue Reading
Advanced Bionics Corp. v. Medtronic, Inc., 29 Cal. 4th 697 (2002) Mark Stultz was employed in Minnesota as a senior product specialist for Medtronic, a manufacturer of implantable neurostimulation devices, before resigning his employment and going to work for Advanced Bionics Corporation, one of Medtronic’s competitors located in Sylmar, California. Upon accepting employment with Medtronic, … Continue Reading
This website uses third party cookies, over which we have no control. To deactivate the use of third party advertising cookies, you should alter the settings in your browser.
