Source: http://www.elinfonet.com/starticles/5/8
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 15:55:16+00:00

Document:
On January 11, 2019, a California federal district court issued a decision bolstering the argument that employee non-solicitation clauses are unenforceable under California law. In Barker v. Insight Global, the judge declined to interpret narrowly another recent California state court of appeal decision finding that a clause restraining former employees from soliciting former co-workers constituted an unenforceable restraint on trade, and was therefore invalid. In light of these decisions, employers need to carefully consider eliminating such clauses from their employment contracts for employees located in California.
n their bylined article for Today’s General Counsel titled “How a No-Rehire Agreement Unraveled,” Irvine Partner Usama Kahf and Associate David Rashe examine the Ninth Circuit decision in Golden v. California Emergency Physicians Medical Group, discussing the legality of no-rehire clauses in settlement agreements. Usama and David review the Golden decision, as well as two other appellate decisions addressing the issue. They conclude their article by encouraging employers to review and update their settlement agreements in light of the Golden decision.
Non-Compete News: Is a Non-Solicitation of Employees Provision Enforceable in California?
Executive Summary: Last month, California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal issued AMN Healthcare, Inc. v. Aya Healthcare Servs., Inc., 28 Cal. App. 5th 923 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018), a decision calling into question the validity of non-solicitation of employees a/k/a anti-piracy provisions in California. Prior to this decision, California’s Supreme Court had left open the issue of whether anti-piracy provisions were enforceable. Arguably, there now exists a split in authority in California with regard to the enforcement of these provisions, although this recent decision may be construed narrowly to its context: staffing companies.
A federal appeals court has held a forum selection clause in a non-disclosure agreement does not cover trade secret misappropriation and related claims that are not based on the agreement. In re Orange, S.A. v. United States District Court, 2016 U.S. Ap. LEXIS 648 (9th Cir. 2016).
On October 21, 2015, the California Supreme Court ordered the publication of SingerLewak LLP v. Gantman underscoring the importance of utilizing arbitration agreements to enforce what a California court might consider to be an unenforceable covenant-not-to compete.
A California appellate court recently affirmed the trial court’s ruling in Cypress Semiconductor Corporation v. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. that the defendant (“Maxim”) was entitled to attorney’s fees under California Civil Code section 3426.4 even after the plaintiff (“Cypress”) voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice. Section 3426.4 awards reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to a prevailing party if a claim of misappropriation of trade secrets is made in bad faith. The appellate court supported its finding on the basis that: (1) Cypress accused Maxim of nothing more, and Maxim did nothing more, than attempt to recruit the employees of a competitor, which Maxim was entitled to do under California law, and (2) Maxim was the prevailing party after Cypress dismissed the suit to avoid an adverse determination on the merits.
To resolve employment disputes, whether in litigation or at a separation, typically, the parties wish to go in separate directions and not cross paths in the future. Consequently, separation or settlement agreements provide compensation and employees often agree not to seek future employment with their former employer and agree that should they unexpectedly come to work for their former employer due to an acquisition, merger or other incident that cause will exist to terminate that employee. The viability of such "no future employment" provisions has been called into question by the Ninth Circuit’s decision earlier this week in Golden v. California Emergency Physicians. In Golden, the Ninth Circuit overturned a District Court’s order finding a "no future employment" provision enforceable. The Ninth Circuit extended the reach of Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, 44 Cal.4th 937 (2008), and Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600, to settlement agreements in a case of first impression by a 2-1 decision over Judge Kozinski’s dissent. The Ninth Circuit was not moved by the fact that the plaintiff was being paid a large sum of money, in part, to move on and give up his right to work for or seek employment with his former employer. Nor was it convinced by Judge Kozinski’s dissenting conclusion that the California Supreme Court would uphold such an agreement. The Court directed the lower court to re-examine the agreement to make a determination as to whether the provision constitutes a substantial restraint on the plaintiff’s trade, in order to determine whether the provision was enforceable. California employers should continue to monitor this case on remand before the district court and consider the impact of this decision in conjunction with preparing separation and settlement agreements arising out of employment to make every effort to ensure enforceability of any "no future employment" provision.
Executive Summary: The California Court of Appeal recently affirmed an award of over $400,000 in attorneys' fees in favor of a group of ex-employees in a trade secret misappropriation lawsuit filed by their former employer, finding that the lawsuit was filed in bad faith. This decision highlights the importance of considering carefully whether to bring a misappropriation claim where there is little or no evidence of actual misappropriation. See SASCO v. Rosendin Electric, Inc.
California Non-Competes: Are They Legal After All?
In an eye opening decision, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California recently granted a temporary restraining order partially enforcing a non-compete agreement. In Richmond Technologies v. Aumtech Business Solutions (copy available below), the Plaintiff provides software for financial services firms. The Plaintiff entered into a â€œTeaming Agreementâ€ with the Defendant, pursuant to which the Defendant developed software for the Plaintiff. In the agreement, the Defendant promised not to (1) use or disclose the Plaintiffâ€™s confidential information; (2) initiate contact with or solicit the Plaintiffâ€™s clients; and (3) compete with the Plaintiff by using its technology. Requesting a temporary restraining order, the Plaintiff alleged a breach of each of these three provisions.
Distinguishing Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, a California Appellate Court Holds That An Employee's E-mails With Her Personal Attorney Sent Through The Employerâ€™s Workplace Computer Are Not Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege.
California Courts Weigh In On Non-Compete Agreements.
In many states, restraints on the practice of a profession, business or trade (such as non-competition agreements) are considered valid, as long as they contain reasonable geographic and time restrictions. But that has not been true in California since 1872. In that year California settled public policy in favor of open competition, and rejected non-competition agreements. In the years since then, the law has evolved substantially, and two recent appeals court cases further refined the situation there.
California - California Supreme Court Invalidates Non-Compete Agreement.
In a unanimous decision, the state’s highest court recently ruled that a noncompetition agreement entered into between an employer and one of its former employees is unenforceable under California law. In so doing, the California Supreme Court upheld a longstanding state law restricting employers from using such agreements to restrain employees’ practice of their professions.
California Supreme Court Rules On Non-compete Agreements And On General Releases.
The California Supreme Court recently handed down a long-awaited and significant decision addressing the nature and scope of non-competition agreements in California. The ruling also addressed the enforceability of contract provisions requiring employees to release "any and all" claims. The case has important consequences for California employers.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 16600
 v. 
 v. 
 v.