Business Law Case Summary

1137 Words5 Pages
Sidney Stratton petitions for a motion to dismiss Burnley Mills’s complaint. Mr. Stratton did not breach his contract by not adhering to the non-compete clause, because § 16600 of the California Business and Professions Code states that, “Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.” Additionally, the complaint does not possess enough factual matter to suggest that Burnley has a valid claim. (Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly) The complaint is not well argued because it is not non-conclusory and irrefutably supported by facts, it is not plausible under the circumstances of the case, nor is it factually true. (Ashcroft v. Iqbal) The complaint is not proper under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and it would most likely be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6). Questions Presented I. Whether California or New York law should govern the validity and interpretation of the non-compete clause? II. Whether it is likely the court would grant a motion to dismiss the complaint against Stratton under FRCP 12(b)(6). Statement of Facts Sidney Stratton was an employee of Plaintiff, Burnley Mills, Inc., for ten years. Burnley Mills is a North Carolina based company; Stratton worked at their California research facility. On…show more content…
Hirshberg. This case states that: “A restrictive covenant in an employment agreement is reasonable only if it: (1) it is no greater than is required for the protection of the legitimate interest of the employer, (2) does not impose undue hardship on the employee, and (3) is not injurious to the public.” These requirements are not impossible to meet. Burnley believes their complaint will have a better chance at succeeding in New York because of its more lenient approach to upholding non-compete

More about Business Law Case Summary

Open Document