“It is not within California’s power to impose its policy preferences on the rest of the country.”
—Cory L. Andrews, WLF General Counsel & Vice President of Litigation

Click here for WLF’s brief.

(Washington, DC)—Yesterday, Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) urged the U.S. Supreme Court to review, and ultimately to summarily reverse, a controversial personal-jurisdiction decision from a California state court. WLF’s brief was prepared with the generous pro bono assistance of Judd E. Stone II, Ari Cuenin, Christopher D. Hilton, and Cody C. Coll of Stone Hilton of Stone Hilton.

The case arises from a lawsuit by a New Jersey resident who signed multiple noncompete agreements during his six-year employment with a New Jersey company incorporated in Delaware. On the day that he resigned, he joined a California-based competitor (while continuing to live and work in New Jersey) and immediately sued his former employer in California state court to invalidate his noncompete agreements. The California courts held that they had personal jurisdiction over the New Jersey company simply because its former employee elected to join a California company and promptly filed suit in California court.

In its amicus brief urging review and summary reversal, WLF explains why horizontal federalism protects against tyranny by diffusing power not only between the States and the federal government, but also among the fifty States.  The limits on personal jurisdiction ensure that no one State, through its courts, can reach outside its proper sphere of influence and encroach on the others. Federalism interests thus constitute a separate, independent check on personal jurisdiction, serving to prevent State overreach no matter the weight of a defendant’s convenience concerns.