Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.

 Skip to Content

Venue Provision in Non-Compete Agreement Governs Even as to Non-Party Interference
August 09, 2011
Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal recently held that a non-compete agreement’s mandatory forum selection clause binds non-signatory parties who are alleged to have tortiously interfered with the agreement. East Coast Karate Studios, Inc. v. Lifestyle Martial Arts, LLC, et al., Nos. 4D10-3061 and 4D10-3877 (Fla. 4th DCA July 6, 2011).

In East Coast Karate Studios, Inc., an employee of a martial arts business in Broward County signed a non-compete agreement containing a mandatory forum selection clause establishing Broward County as the exclusive venue for any case arising in connection with the agreement. The employee later left the business and immediately began working for a martial arts business run by the employee’s wife. The court reasoned that the mandatory forum selection clause would govern in the tortious interference claim against the employee’s wife and against the new employer even though the employee’s wife and the new employer were not signatories to the agreement.

The court reached this holding because there is a close relationship between the employee, his wife, and the new employer. In addition, the interests of the employee’s wife and the new employer are derivative of the employee’s interests because the interests stem from whether the agreement is enforceable. Finally, the claims involving the employee’s wife and new employer arise directly out of the agreement. The court declined to hold that the forum selection clause is void on the basis of fraud because the employee, his wife, and the new employer had not demonstrated that the clause itself was the product of fraud and the forum is not so inconvenient as to deprive them of their day in court.
 
Authored By
Image: Amanda Romfh Jesteadt
Amanda Romfh Jesteadt
Related Practices
Trade Secrets / Noncompete Litigation and Consulting
©2024 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.