Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca6-15-03347/USCOURTS-ca6-15-03347-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Mikuta
Appellant
Reynolds and Reynolds Company
Appellee

Document Text:

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 16a0088n.06

No. 15-3347

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

REYNOLDS AND REYNOLDS )

COMPANY, )

)

Plaintiff-Appellee, )

) ON APPEAL FROM THE 

v. ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT

) COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN

JAMES MIKUTA, ) DISTRICT OF OHIO

)

Defendant-Appellant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

)

BEFORE: NORRIS, CLAY, and COOK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. James Mikuta worked for fifteen years as a sales representative for 

Reynolds and Reynolds Company (“Reynolds”). He resigned in February 2013 and took a 

position with a competitor. After his resignation, Reynolds sought to enforce a 

2007 employment agreement through arbitration that included non-compete and confidentiality 

provisions. The arbitrator ultimately ordered a permanent injunction that prohibited Mikuta from 

contacting 154 of his former customers for three years or from using any proprietary material of 

Reynolds. Thereafter, Reynolds filed suit in federal court under the Federal Arbitration Act, 

9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16, to enforce the arbitration award. The district court complied. Mikuta appeals. 

Specifically, he challenges federal diversity jurisdiction and argues that the proper forum was the 

Ohio Court of Common Pleas where he filed suit seeking modification of the arbitrator’s 

decision. He contends in the alternative that the district court should have abstained pending the 

state court’s decision. 

 Case: 15-3347 Document: 26-1 Filed: 02/10/2016 Page: 1
Reynolds and Reynolds Co. v. Mikuta

No. 15-3347

2

We have had an opportunity to review the record below, the briefs submitted by the 

parties, and to hear oral argument. In our view, the district court correctly concluded that 

diversity jurisdiction was proper and it did not abuse its discretion in declining to abstain. 

Because we agree with the analysis of the district court’s orders of December 31, 2014 (finding 

that it had diversity jurisdiction), February 11, 2015 (declining to abstain and enforcing 

arbitration), and March 31, 2015 (overruling defendant’s motion for reconsideration), a reasoned 

opinion by this court would serve no useful purpose. 

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

 Case: 15-3347 Document: 26-1 Filed: 02/10/2016 Page: 2