MIA MACHADO-MILLER, Appellant, v. MERSEREAU & SHANNON, LLP, Respondent., 180 Ore. App. 586

Summary

The client was employed by an Oregon company to perform services in California. The employment contract contained a non-competition clause, but despite that clause the client quit her employment and went to work for a competitor taking two of the Oregon company's clients with her. The employment contract also contained a choice-of-law clause that provided that the agreement was governed by the laws of the State of Oregon. The case was tried in federal court in the State of Oregon, which applied the choice of law rules of the state in which the action was filed. The appellate court found that: (1) even if the law firm had argued for the application of California law in the underlying federal case, the trial court there would properly have rejected the argument because California's interest in the nonenforcement of the non-competition clause was not materially greater than Oregon's interest in enforcing it; and (2) therefore the law firm's failure to make the argument did not cause the ...