Wellspring Family Service, V. Nancy R. Owen
82128-8
| Wash. Ct. App. | Oct 11, 2021Background
- Wellspring employed Nancy Owen as a mental health therapist subject to a written Nonsolicitation Agreement that barred providing services to any Wellspring "Client" for 12 months after employment ended.
- "Client" was defined to include persons who had received services within the prior 12 months.
- Owen resigned in December 2017 and then provided therapy to former Wellspring clients at her private practice.
- Wellspring sued Owen for breach and sought enforcement of the Nonsolicitation Agreement.
- Owen counterclaimed that the Agreement violated Washington’s prohibition on noncompetition covenants (RCW 49.62).
- The trial court granted Wellspring’s CR 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the counterclaim, holding the statute excludes nonsolicitation agreements; Owen appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Nonsolicitation Agreement is a prohibited "noncompetition covenant" under RCW 49.62 | Owen: The Agreement (by its client definition and post‑employment prohibition) operates as a noncompetition covenant and therefore violates RCW 49.62 | Wellspring: The Agreement is a nonsolicitation agreement expressly excluded from the statutory definition of "noncompetition covenant" | Court: Agreement fits statutory definition of "nonsolicitation agreement," so RCW 49.62’s noncompetition restrictions do not apply; dismissal affirmed |
| If treated as a noncompetition covenant, whether it would be unenforceable under RCW 49.62.020 | Owen: (implicit) if a noncompetition covenant, it is void | Wellspring: Even if characterized as noncompetition, the statutory exceptions could render it enforceable (disclosure, earnings, layoff exceptions) | Court: Owen failed to argue why statutory exceptions would not apply; inadequately briefed; court declined to consider; affirm dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Quality Loan Serv. Corp., 186 Wn. App. 838 (standard of review for CR 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Bravo v. Dolsen Cos., 125 Wn.2d 745 (pleading standard: dismissal only if no set of facts would support relief)
- Tenore v. AT & T Wireless Servs., 136 Wn.2d 322 (courts presume facts pleaded are true on a motion to dismiss)
- Dep’t of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wn.2d 1 (statutory interpretation: give effect to plain meaning and context)
- A Place for Mom v. Perkins, 475 F. Supp. 3d 1217 (discusses enforceability conditions for noncompetition covenants under RCW 49.62)