Hartstein v. Rembrandt IP Solutions, LLC

• Decision Date: 30 July 2012
• Docket Number: Case No. 12-2270 SC
• Parties: PHILIP C. HARTSTEIN, Plaintiff, v. REMBRANDT IP SOLUTIONS, LLC, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California

PHILIP C. HARTSTEIN, Plaintiff,

v. REMBRANDT IP SOLUTIONS, LLC,and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants.

Case No. 12-2270 SC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dated: July 30, 2012

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION TO REMAND AND GRANTING

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Philip C. Hartstein ("Plaintiff") brings this action for declaratory relief to invalidate the covenant not to compete in his employment agreement with Defendant Rembrandt IP Solutions, LLC ("Defendant"). Plaintiff asserts that the covenant is contrary to California Business and Professions Code section 16600. The case was initially filed in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Mateo but was subsequently removed to federal court. ECF No. 1 ("Not. of Removal"). Plaintiff now moves to remand on the ground that the amount in controversy is less than the jurisdictional minimum of $75,000. ECF No. 21 ("MTR"). Additionally, Defendant moves to dismiss for improper venue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) on the ground that Plaintiff's employment agreement includes a mandatory forum selection clause which calls for exclusivejurisdiction in Pennsylvania. ECF No. 5 ("MTD"). Both motions are fully briefed. ECF Nos. 22 ("MTR Opp'n"), 23 ("MTD Opp'n"), 24 ("Reply ISO MTD"), 25 ("Reply ISO MTR"). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this matter appropriate for determination without oral argument. As detailed below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for improper venue.

II. BACKGROUND

Defendant is a Delaware limited liability company ("LLC") with a principal place of business in Pennsylvania. ECF No. 3 ("Compl.") ¶ 2. Defendant's sole member is its parent, Rembrandt IP Management, LLC ("RIPM"). RIPM also has only one member -- an individual who resides in and is a citizen of Pennsylvania. ECF No. 19 ¶¶ 2-3. Defendant identifies and develops business opportunities for RIPM, which is engaged in the management of funds focused on investing in intellectual property and related opportunities across a broad spectrum of industries, technologies, and business methods, including generating revenues from patents. Compl. Ex. A ("Empl. Agr.").

On December 23, 2009, Plaintiff, a resident of San Mateo, California, entered into the Employment Agreement with Defendant. Compl. ¶¶ 3, 7; Empl. Agr. The Employment Agreement contains a non-compete provision that restricts Plaintiff from directly or indirectly working for a competitor of Defendant for a period of one year from the termination of his employment unless he first obtains the written consent of the CEO or President of Defendant. Empl. Agr. ¶ 4(a). Additionally, the Employment Agreement barsPlaintiff from disclosing Defendant's trade secrets and confidential information to third parties. Id. ¶ 9. The Employment Agreement also contains a forum selection clause which provides: "[Plaintiff] and [Defendant] submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the state courts located in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania and to the Federal courts located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania as to all actions and proceedings relating in any way to this Agreement and/or [Plaintiff]'s relationship with [Defendant]." Id. ¶ 15.

Plaintiff worked as Defendant's Managing Director of Business Development from January 1, 2010 through March 5, 2012. ECF No. 22-1 ("Wood Decl.") ¶ 5.¹ In his last year of employment with Defendant, Plaintiff earned an annual salary "well in excess" of $75,000. Id. ¶ 6; Not. of Removal ¶ 8. Plaintiff "was jointly responsible for all aspects of [Defendant's] business development efforts, including interaction with patent owners located throughout the United States and the identification of prospective patent investment opportunities." Wood Decl. ¶ 5. Plaintiff was one of only two employees at the company with direct responsibility for generating patent investment leads and opportunities. Id. From March 2011 through February 2012, Plaintiff managed or generated more than one hundred unique investment leads. Id. ¶ 9. The potential expected profit from Plaintiff's leads is in the millions of dollars. Id. ¶ 10.

On March 5, 2012, Plaintiff informed Defendant that he was resigning from the company and requested that Defendant waive thenon-compete provision in the Employment Agreement. Compl. ¶ 9. Defendant indicated that it intended to enforce the provision. Id. After leaving Defendant, Plaintiff began employment as Vice President and Portfolio Manager at IPNav. Wood Decl. Ex. A. ("IPNav Press Release"). Plaintiff's new job responsibilities are similar to his responsibilities with Defendant. See id. Defendant and IPNav compete for many of the same patent portfolios and investment opportunities. Id. ¶ 15.

Also on March 5, 2012, Plaintiff filed the instant action in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Mateo. Plaintiff seeks a judicial declaration that the non-compete provision is invalid and contrary to section 16600 of the California Business and Professions Code. Compl. ¶ 14. He also seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction barring Defendants from enforcing the non-compete provision. Id. ¶ 19. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he intends to comply with all other provisions of the Employment Agreement and that he has not misappropriated and has no intention of misappropriating Defendant's trade secrets or confidential information. Id. ¶ 10.

On May 4, 2012, Defendant removed the action to federal court on diversity grounds. In the Notice of Removal, Defendant asserts, on information and belief, that Plaintiff is earning an annual salary in excess of $75,000 with his new employer. Id. Defendant also asserts that the value of its trade secrets and other confidential information known to Plaintiff exceeds $75,000. Id. ¶ 9.

III. DISCUSSION

The Court first addresses Plaintiff's Motion to Remand to determine whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear this case. Concluding that the exercise of subject-matter jurisdiction is proper, the Court then considers Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

A. Motion to Remand

Plaintiff moves to remand this action back to state court on the ground that Defendant has failed to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of $75,000. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Defendant has met its burden.

A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court if the action could have been filed originally in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). A plaintiff may seek to have a case remanded to the state court from which it was removed if the district court lacks jurisdiction or if there is a defect in the removal procedure. Id. § 1447(c). The general removal statutes are construed restrictively so as to limit removal jurisdiction. Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108-09 (1941). Federal jurisdiction "must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance." Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996) (quotations omitted). The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction for purposes of removal is on the defendant. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004).

District courts may exercise diversity jurisdiction in the first instance where "the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs" and there iscomplete diversity of citizenship between the plaintiff and defendants. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Upon removal, the defendant bears the burden of showing that it is more likely than not that $75,000 is in controversy. See Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 377 (9th Cir. 1997).

"In actions seeking declaratory or injunctive relief, it is well established that the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the object of the litigation." Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Adver. Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333, 347 (1977). "The value of an injunction may not be capable of precise determination, but precision is not required." Mailwaukee Mailing, Shipment and Equip., Inc. v. Neopost, Inc., 259 F. Supp. 2d 769, 772 (E.D. Wis. 2003). Where, as here, a plaintiff seeks to invalidate a noncompetition clause, courts sometimes "look to the profits earned by the employer on business generated by the employee during the period immediately preceding his termination to determine the amount in controversy." See Luna v. Kemira Specialty, Inc., 575 F. Supp. 2d 1166, 1172 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (quotations omitted). Alternatively, courts have considered the Plaintiff's salary or the likely financial impact of Plaintiff's competition during the non-compete period. See Davis v. Advanced Care Techs., Inc., CVS 06 02449 DFL DAD, 2007 WL 1302736, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 2, 2007). Under any of these measures, the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied here.

With respect to the first measure -- the profits generated by the employee -- RIPM's corporate counsel and secretary declares that "the potential expected profit from many of Plaintiff's investment leads, if acquired and developed, was in the millions ofdollars." Wood Decl. ¶ 10.² Plaintiff essentially argues that because the profitability of these leads cannot be precisely or accurately measured until some future date, Plaintiff's value to Defendant's business is too speculative to be considered for the purposes of an amount in controversy determination. See Reply ISO MTR at 3. This argument is unavailing. It is often difficult to directly measure an employee's contribution to a business's profits and revenues. However, that does not mean the employee's value to the business is zero. Here, Plaintiff played a central and high-level role in Defendant's business operations since he was one of only two employees with direct responsibility for generating Defendant's patent investment leads and...