On Thursday, January 19 at 10 a.m. Eastern, Boston partner Dawn Mertineit is presenting a webinar for the Federal Bar Association and myLawCLE. The “Drafting and Enforcing Restrictive Covenants in Multiple Jurisdictions” webinar covers best practices and key tips for businesses with employees in multiple jurisdictions, from drafting restrictive covenants agreements, implementing a plan to roll those agreements out, and
Continue Reading Dawn Mertineit to Present Webinar on Drafting and Enforcing Restrictive Covenants in Multiple Jurisdictions
As in real estate, as in law. A recent ruling in the USDC for the District of Colorado demonstrates that procedural considerations of where to file may often have substantive consequences. Plaintiff LS3, Inc. (“LS3”) sued Cherokee Federal Solutions, LLC (“CFS”) and various former employees of LS3 in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The gist of the action was that CFS, a competitor of LS3, solicited away former employees of LS3 to work for CFS in violation of employee non-compete agreements. Claims were asserted against the individual employees for breach of the restrictive covenant agreements and against CFS for tortious interference with those same agreements. Critically, the agreements at issue all contained Maryland choice-of-law provisions but apparently no venue or forum provisions.
As many of our blog readers will know, the enforceability of restrictive covenants often depends on which state’s law applies to the dispute. For example, California is well known for refusing to enforce 
By: 
