799 F. Supp. 2d 665
E.D. La.2011Background
- Westbrook filed a state court petition (Feb. 22, 2011) naming Pike Electric, Pike Energy Solutions, Pike Enterprises, and an insurer over alleged unpaid wages and contract breaches.
- Westbrook contends he was employed by Red Simpson, later acquired by Pike, and signed an Employment Agreement containing severance, benefits, and restrictive covenants.
- Key contract provisions: termination without cause, severance and health benefits upon termination by executive, and one-year non-compete and non-solicitation covenants.
- Westbrook resigned Jan. 27, 2011; he alleges Pike failed to pay severance/benefits and that the restrictive covenants are unenforceable.
- Original petition asserted six counts: unpaid wages, breach of contract, declaratory judgment on non-compete/non-solicit, breach of implied good faith, conversion, and enrichment without cause.
- Pike Electric and Pike Energy removed the case to federal court (diversity) and moved to dismiss/transfer under Rule 12/28 U.S.C. § 1406; a Separation Agreement was later proposed, leading to a First Amended Complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the case should be transferred to Delaware. | Westbrook contends no valid Delaware forum clause governs the dispute. | Pike argues the forum selection clause in the Employment Agreement mandates Delaware. | Transfer denied; Louisiana forum-sharing policy respected; clause not voluntarily agreed post-incident. |
| Whether the breach of implied good faith and fair dealing claim (Amended Count 4) should be dismissed as to Pike Electric. | Westbrook's termination conduct violated good faith duties under contract. | No manifest bad faith; mere nonpayment is insufficient for breach of good faith. | Breach of good faith claim survives against Pike Electric. |
| Whether enrichment without cause claim (Amended Count 5) should be dismissed as to Pike Electric. | Pike electric benefited from nonpayment and should compensate. | Unjust enrichment unavailable where express remedies exist under contract. | Enrichment claim dismissed; other remedies exist. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sawicki v. K/S Stavanger Prince, 802 So.2d 598 (La.2001) (forum selection clauses require express voluntary agreement post-incident to enforce; Louisiana public policy favored.)
- Bell v. Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc. of Louisiana, 983 So.2d 927 (La.App. 5th Cir.2008) (forum clauses strictly construed against enforcement.)
- Restivo v. Hanger Prosthetics & Orthotics, Inc., 483 F.Supp.2d 521 (E.D. La. 2007) (publication supports state-law approach to contract and forum issues.)
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co., 313 U.S. 487 (U.S. 1941) (conflicts-of-laws uniform choice governed by state law.)
- Davis v. Humble Oil and Refining Co., 283 So.2d 783 (La.App. 1st Cir.1973) (public policy considerations in choice-of-law/forum decisions.)
- ADR v. Graves, 374 So.2d 699 (La.App. 1st Cir.1979) (public policy considerations restricting enforceability of forum provisions.)