Samuelian v. Life Generations Healthcare, LLC, 104 Cal. App. 5th 331 (2024)
Robert and Stephen Samuelian co-founded Life Generations Healthcare, LLC. When they sold a portion of the business, the company adopted a new operating agreement that restrained its members (including the Samuelians) from competing with the company. The Samuelians later filed a dispute in arbitration challenging the enforceability of the non-compete, contending
As we previously reported, California recently enacted AB 1076, which reinforces the state’s broad statutory ban on noncompete agreements. The law took effect on January 1, 2024, and expressly codifies Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, 44 Cal. 4th 937 (2008), a California Supreme Court opinion barring any noncompete, no matter how narrowly tailored it may be. The new law also affirms
On September 1, 2023, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 699, which amends California Business & Professions Code Section 16600 to prohibit an employer from entering into or attempting to enforce a non-compete agreement regardless of whether the contract was signed outside of California. The law goes into effect on January 1, 2024.
Previously, California law banned non-compete agreements, subject to limited exceptions.
Labor Co-Chair Tony Oncidi is extensively quoted by The Hollywood Reporter — he provides cogent insights about the Federal Trade Commission’s newly proposed rules that would ban most noncompetes nationwide.
We invite you to read the full article here.
We invite you to review our newly-posted March 2022 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
Blue Mountain Enterprises, LLC v. Owen, 74 Cal. App. 5th 537 (2022)
Gregory S. Owen transferred his ownership interest in several real estate and construction-related firms to Blue Mountain Enterprises, LLC, as part of a joint venture with Acolyte Limited. Owen became Blue Mountain’s CEO and he agreed to a post-employment non-solicitation provision, which precluded him from soliciting Blue Mountain’s customers for a period
Despite California’s general hostility towards post-termination restrictive covenants, the California Court of Appeal, in a recently published opinion, Blue Mountain Enters., LLC v. Owen, 74 Cal.App.5th 537 (1st Dist. Jan. 10, 2022), affirmed that a post-termination customer non-solicitation agreement was enforceable under California Business & Professions Code § 16601.
Under most circumstances, contractual provisions that prevent a person from engaging in a profession, trade,
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 of law. The lawsuit, Scales v. Badger Daylighting Corp. (Case
Wanke, Indus., Commercial, Residential, Inc. v. Superior Court, 209 Cal. App. 4th 1151 (2012)
In an underlying lawsuit, Wanke sued its former employees Scott Keck and Jacob Bozarth for misappropriation of trade secrets, among other things. That lawsuit was settled, and the parties agreed to a stipulated injunction pursuant to which Keck, Bozarth and their company WP Solutions (collectively, “WP Solutions”) would not contact
Fillpoint, LLC v. Maas, WL 3631266 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)
Michael Maas sold his stock in Crave Entertainment Group, Inc. to Handleman Company and signed a stock purchase agreement that contained a three-year covenant not to compete. Maas signed a separate employment agreement with Crave that contained a one-year covenant not to compete, which would become operative when Maas’s employment with Crave ended. Maas