Source: http://www.myemploymentlawyer.com/wiki/Choice-of-Law-in-Non-compete-Cases.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 19:51:02+00:00

Document:
Non-compete laws vary significantly from state to state. California law favors employees, while Ohio law recognizes and protects most employer interests. Thus, the law that a court chooses to apply to a non-compete case has significant, if not dispositive, results.
Generally, courts apply their own law to contracts made or performed in their state. However, courts must use “choice of law” rules to decide what law to apply to contract cases involving parties or performance in more than one state. Choice of law rules generally require the court to apply the law of the state that has the greater “contacts” to the lawsuit or the greater interest in resolving it.
If parties agree on the law to govern their contracts, courts usually apply that law, unless the state whose law the parties picked has no connection to the lawsuit, or the strong public policy of the court’s own state prohibits it from applying the other state’s law. Similarly, courts enforce the parties' agreement on the location of the court, known as a forum selection clause, unless the agreement was the result of fraud, is unreasonable at the time of litigation or deprives a litigant of his or her day in court.
domicile, residence, place of incorporation, and place of business.
the law of the other state violates a strong public policy of California.
Since California Business and Professional Code section 16600 banning employee non-competes is a strong public policy, California courts will usually not apply the law of a state that enforces the non-compete. In other words, California employers cannot escape California’s ban against non-competes by selecting another states’ laws. For example, a California court applied California non-compete law to a non-compete performed in California, even where the employer was outside of the state, recruited a non-California resident for California employment and agreed with teh employee to apply the law of New York. Frame v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 20 Cal. App. 3d 668 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1971).
California will not, however, prevent a court in another state from enforcing a non-compete involving a California employee. Even though an important California public policy is at stake, California’s respect for the jurisdiction of other state’s courts prevents it from overriding the operation of their courts.
Florida takes a relatively inflexible approach, applying the law of the state in which the parties executed the contract, unless the contract is for the performance of services. Lafarge Corp. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 927 F. Supp. 1534 (M.D. Fla. 1996).
application of the law of the chosen state would be contrary to a fundamental policy of a state which has a materially greater interest than the chosen state.
Schulke Radio Productions, Ltd. v. Midwestern Broadcasting Co., 6 Ohio St. 3d 436, 438-439 (Ohio 1983) (adopting Restatement of Law 2d (1971) 561, Conflict of Laws, Section 187).
Florida courts, like those in California, apply the law chosen by the parties as long as a “reasonable relationship” exists between the state whose law the parties chose and that state’s law does not conflict with Florida law. Unlike California, however, Florida does not now have a strong public policy prohibiting non-competes.
However, for the “fundamental policy” exception to apply, the issue must be of such overriding concern to the public policy of another jurisdiction as to override the intent of the parties and the interest of New York in enforcing its own policies. Estee Lauder Cos. v. Batra, 430 F. Supp. 2d 158 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).
enforcement under the particular circumstances of the case would result in litigation in a jurisdiction so unreasonable, difficult and inconvenient that plaintiff would for all practical purposes be deprived of his day in court.
In Green v. Picker Corp. (Ohio, Mar. 29, 1979), Cuyahoga App. No. 38621, the court rejected a forum selection that would “require appellant, whose financial resources are far less than those of Picker Corporation, to bring this action in New York when he worked for the corporation in Ohio, and the parties to the lawsuit, appellant, the corporation, and the five members of the Retirement Income Plan Committee, are all Ohio residents.” See also Kennecorp Mortgage Brokers v. Country Club Convalescent Hosp, 66 Ohio St. 3d 173 (Ohio 1993) (absent fraud or overreaching, Ohio courts enforce forum selection clauses in commercial contracts, including non-competes, unless the forum would be so inconvenient to the parties as to deprive them of their day in court or enforcement of the clause would be unreasonable and unjust).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.