Rimkus Consulting Group Inc. v. Cammarata - Ballard Spahr LLP
Rimkus Consulting Group Inc. v. Cammarata - Ballard Spahr LLP
Rimkus Consulting Group Inc. v. Cammarata - Ballard Spahr LLP
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Case 4:07-cv-00405 Document 450 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/10 Page 38 of 139<br />
court’s ruling on Bell’s Common Stock Purchase Agreement and held that the<br />
noncompetition clause in that Agreement was invalid and unenforceable. On March 25,<br />
2008, the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision that<br />
Louisiana law applied to the parties’ agreements and that the Texas forum-selection and<br />
choice-of-law clauses and the noncompetition and nonsolicitation covenants in the<br />
Employment Agreement were unenforceable. Bell v. <strong>Rimkus</strong> <strong>Consulting</strong> <strong>Group</strong>, <strong>Inc</strong>. of La.,<br />
07-996 (La. App. 5 Cir. 3/25/08); 983 So. 2d 927. In holding that Louisiana law applied to<br />
the 1996 Employment Agreement despite the Texas choice-of-law clause, the Louisiana<br />
Court of Appeal stated:<br />
Forum selection clauses will be upheld unless they<br />
contravene strong public policy of the forum in which the suit<br />
is brought. LA. C.C. art. 3450. LA. R.S. 23:921 A(2), a<br />
provision which was added by the legislature in 1999, is an<br />
expression of strong Louisiana public policy concerning forum<br />
selection clauses. . . .<br />
. . . Louisiana law expressly provides that conventional<br />
obligations are governed by the law of the state whose policies<br />
would be most seriously impaired if its law were not applied to<br />
the issue. Further, issues of conventional obligations may be<br />
governed by law chosen by the parties, except to the extent that<br />
law contravenes the public policy of the state whose law would<br />
be applicable under La. C.C. art 3537.<br />
As previously stated herein, Louisiana has a longstanding<br />
public policy to prohibit or severely restrict non-competition<br />
provisions in employment agreements which curtail an<br />
employee’s right to [] earn his livelihood. These agreements are<br />
in derogation of the common right, and they must be strictly<br />
construed against the party seeking their enforcement.<br />
Application of Texas law to this dispute would thwart<br />
Louisiana’s longstanding public policy and interest in this type<br />
38