SKF USA INC. v. OKKERSE
2:13-cv-05111
E.D. Pa.Jan 15, 2014Background
- SKF USA, Inc. filed suit in the EDPA against Okkerse, Blanchard, Powers, and Hampton over alleged breaches of post-employment non-competition and related provisions.
- The complaint asserts contract and tort claims (breach of contract, tortious interference with contract, and tortious interference with prospective relations).
- The Defendants resigned to join a direct competitor and had signed Confidentiality and Non-competition Agreements governing post-termination conduct.
- The agreements contain a Pennsylvania choice-of-law provision and a forum-selection clause mandating Pennsylvania courts.
- SKF is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Lansdale, Pennsylvania; most defendants performed work in Louisiana or other states.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice of law and forum clause enforceability | Pennsylvania law governs and forum clause should be enforced. | Louisiana policy should govern and forum clause is invalid or unenforceable. | Pennsylvania law governs; forum selection clause enforced. |
| Personal jurisdiction | Consent via forum clause allows PA jurisdiction; minimum-contacts analysis is superseded. | No general/minimum contacts; forum clause insufficient to confer jurisdiction. | Court has personal jurisdiction over defendants due to valid forum clause and consent. |
| Venue and transfer | Venue proper in EDPA because forum clause and jurisdiction; transfer not warranted. | Transfer to EDLA for convenience should be considered. | Transfer denied; venue proper due to forum clause and jurisdiction. |
| Failure to state a claim under 12(b)(6) | Non-compete and non-solicitation clauses are enforceable and protect legitimate interests. | Agreements lack adequate consideration, are unreasonable in scope, or not reasonably necessary. | Counts survive; pleadings plausibly support enforceability under Pennsylvania law. |
| Geographic scope reasonableness | Global scope is appropriate given duties and business across states. | No geographic limitation; overbroad and potentially unenforceable. | Geographic scope cannot be resolved on the pleadings; court may reform if needed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kruzits v. Okuma Mach. Tool, Inc., 40 F.3d 52 (3d Cir. 1994) (forum-state relationship for choice-of-law)
- Coface Collections N Am. v. Newton, 430 F. App'x 162 (3d Cir. 2011) (geographic contacts alone do not defeat chosen law under Restatement § 187)
- Victaulic Co. v. Tieman, 499 F.3d 227 (3d Cir. 2007) (non-competition enforceability and public policy considerations)
- Hess v. Gebhard & Co. Inc., 808 A.2d 912 (Pa. 2002) (protectable interests include trade secrets, goodwill; reasonableness of restraints)
- Parker v. KPM, Not Applicable (Not Applicable) (Utilized as a placeholder where applicable in text; no official reporter citation provided)