Morrison Foerster Scores Multi-State Non-Compete Win for Springshot, Inc.

Morrison Foerster achieved a victory for its clients Springshot, Inc. and Robert Blair in a non-compete case against INFORM Software Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 22-cv-06000-LB). 

INFORM, headquartered in Georgia, objected to Springshot hiring Blair to work in California, based on a non-compete Blair had signed in 2014 with INFORM that had Illinois choice of law and venue provisions. 

Morrison Foerster filed a declaratory relief action in California on behalf of Blair and Springshot to invalidate the non-compete. Relying on Illinois choice of law and forum clauses that purported to require arbitration in Illinois, INFORM moved to dismiss the declaratory relief action based on forum non coveniens or, in the alternative, compel arbitration. Springshot and Blair (who was not represented by independent legal counsel when he signed his agreement with INFORM) opposed the motion, arguing (among other things) that the forum selection and choice of law clauses were unenforceable under California Labor Code Section 925 and that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable and thus unenforceable. After a full briefing and a hearing, Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler denied INFORM’s motion, ruling for Springshot and Blair on all points.

With the underlying case remaining in California, the parties were prepared to litigate the merits. However, following Springshot’s and Blair’s victory, INFORM agreed to waive Blair’s non-compete and the parties entered into a settlement resolving the case. 

Global Employment and Labor Practice co-chair Eric Akira Tate and senior associate Cooper Spinelli led the Morrison Foerster team representing Springshot and Blair.