The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Christina A. Snyder, U.S. District Judge
Present: The Honorable CHRISTINA A. SNYDER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Proceedings: (In Chambers:) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS (filed 11/14/2011)
On October 5, 2011, plaintiff Maria Sevigny ("plaintiff") filed the instant complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court against defendant DG Fastchannel, Inc. ("DG"), alleging (1) negligent misrepresentation, (2) violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 2802, and (3) wrongful termination in violation of public policy pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600 et seq. and Cal. Lab. Code § 2802. Defendant timely removed to this Court on November 4, 2011.
On November 14, 2011, defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiff filed her opposition on November 21, 2011, and defendant filed its reply on November 28, 2011. After carefully considering the arguments set forth by both parties, the Court finds and concludes as follows.
In 2009, plaintiff was employed by EyeWonder, an interactive digital advertising company. Compl. ¶ 6. Her employment agreement with EyeWonder contained a non-complete clause that precluded her from soliciting EyeWonder's customers should she leave the company to work for a competitor. Id. ¶ 7. In August 2009, a recruiter for Unicast (a division of defendant DG and direct competitor of EyeWonder) approached plaintiff about potentially leaving EyeWonder to work for Unicast. Id. ¶ 6. Plaintiff informed the recruiter that she was subject to a non-compete agreement and, upon request, produced a copy of the agreement for the recruiter to assess. Id. ¶¶ 7--8. The Unicast recruiter allegedly represented to plaintiff that the "non-compete clause was unenforceable" and that Unicast "would take care of" any problems that might arise between plaintiff and EyeWonder. Id. ¶ 8.
In December 2009, plaintiff accepted a position with Unicast. Id. ¶ 9. Shortly thereafter, EyeWonder brought suit in a Georgia court to enforce its non-compete agreement and to preclude plaintiff from soliciting her former clients. Id. ¶ 11. Unicast initially paid for plaintiff's attorneys' fees in defending the Georgia action and in a separate lawsuit plaintiff ...