Ortho Solutions, LC v. Sanchez
4:19-cv-01307
E.D. Mo.Jun 12, 2019Background
- DynaFlex (Missouri) hired Eric Sanchez in 2016 as a sales representative for a California territory; he signed a Missouri-governed Non-Competition and Confidentiality Agreement at DynaFlex headquarters in St. Ann, MO.
- The Agreement: two-year post-employment non-compete covering competition in North America, non-solicitation of DynaFlex customers, and a broad confidentiality/trade-secrets clause governed by the Missouri UTSA.
- Sanchez resigned April 15, 2019; DynaFlex alleges he began working for competitor Henry Schein in California and has solicited or intends to divert DynaFlex customers and use confidential information.
- DynaFlex sent cease-and-desist letters to Sanchez and Henry Schein; DynaFlex filed suit May 14, 2019 in the Eastern District of Missouri seeking TRO, injunctions, and damages for breach and trade-secret misappropriation.
- Sanchez moved to dismiss for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3)/28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) or, alternatively, to transfer under § 1406(a) or § 1404(a). The court heard argument and permitted additional briefing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue in E.D. Mo. is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 | Venue proper because Sanchez signed the Agreement and performed employment duties in Missouri (headquarters contacts) | Venue improper; the wrongful acts (alleged breaches, solicitation, use of trade secrets) occurred in Central District of California | Venue improper in E.D. Mo.; case should be transferred to Central District of California, S.D. |
| Whether case should be dismissed or transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) | DynaFlex preferred proceeding in this district; requested TRO remain with transferee court | Sanchez sought dismissal or transfer; argued interests support transfer to California | Court exercised discretion to transfer (interest of justice) rather than dismiss; TRO remains pending for transferee court to consider |
Key Cases Cited
- Atlantic Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court of W. Dist. of Tex., 571 U.S. 49 (framework for venue challenges and § 1391 analysis)
- Woodke v. Dahm, 70 F.3d 983 (8th Cir.) (focus venue analysis on defendant's wrongful activities)
- United States v. Orshek, 164 F.2d 741 (8th Cir.) (burden on defendant to show improper venue)