The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Richard J. Arcara United States District Judge
Plaintiff Elexco Land Services, Inc. commenced this breach of contract action against a former employee David Hennig and Inland Geoservices LLC in Supreme Court of the State of New York, Erie County. Defendants removed the case to this Court on March 14, 2011. Plaintiff has alleged that Defendant Hennig breached his employment agreement with Elexco when he started competing company Inland Geoservices and solicited Elexco clients. The causes of action alleged by Plaintiff include breach of contract, tortious interference with contractual relations, tortious interference with prospective contractual relations, unfair competition, breach of the duty of loyalty, and vicarious liability.*fn1
This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1), on April 25, 2011. On September 9, 2011, Defendant Hennig moved for partial summary judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, to dismiss Plaintiff's breach of contract claim on the ground that the non-compete and liquidated damages provisions in his employment agreement were unenforceable. Plaintiff filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment on September 30, 2011. Plaintiff's motion requested denial of Defendant Hennig's motion and a declaration that the non-compete and liquidated damages provisions were reasonable and enforceable.
On December 28, 2011, Magistrate Judge McCarthy issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Defendant Hennig's motion for summary judgment be granted to the extent that it seeks to declare the non-compete clause of the employment agreement to be unenforceable, but that it otherwise be denied. Magistrate Judge McCarthy further recommended that Plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment be denied. Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1), this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. Upon de novo review of the Report and Recommendation, and after reviewing the submissions of the parties, the Court adopts the proposed findings of the Report and Recommendation in their entirety.
Enforceability of the Non-Compete Agreement Plaintiff Elexco is a full service land company. Services offered by Elexco include land consulting services, renewable energy services, mapping services, title services, legal services and seismic support services. Defendant was employed as manger of the seismic support services group. Defendant was not involved in any other aspect of Elexco's business.
Defendant's employment agreement provided, in pertinent part, the following:
Employee hereby agrees that employee will not, during the term of his employment, or for a period of eighteen (18) months after the termination thereof, engage directly or indirectly in a business similar to [Elexco's] business...[e]mployee further agrees that employee will not, during the term of his employment, or for a period of eighteen (18) months after the termination thereof, directly of indirectly, 1) induce any customers of Employer to patronize any similar business which compete with Employer; 2) canvas, solicit or accept any similar business from any customer of the Employer; 3) directly or indirectly request or advise any customers of the Employer to withdraw, curtail or cancel their business or services with Employer; or [sic] 4) directly or indirectly disclose to any person or corporation the name or address of any of the customers of Employer; 5) attempt to induce, or induce, any existing or former customers of the Employer to take any existing or future business from the Employer to the employee or any other third party or entity.
On September 13, 2009, Defendant provided 60 days notice of his intent to resign from Elexco.
Under New York law, "restrictive covenants which interfere with an individual's ability to pursue [his] vocation after leaving a particular employer are disfavored, although not per se unenforceable". See Webcraft Technologies, Inc. v. McCaw, 674 F. Supp. 1039 (SDNY 1987); American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Wolf, 52 N.Y.2d 394 (1981). Since "powerful considerations of public policy...militate against sanctioning the loss of a man's livelihood", covenants not to compete with a former employer are subject to an "overriding limitation of reasonableness." Karpinski v. Ingrasci, 28 N.Y.2d 45 (1971). Thus, a restrictive covenant may be enforced only if it is reasonable in time and geographic scope, necessary to protect the employer's legitimate interests, not harmful to the public and not unreasonably burdensome to the employee. BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg, 93 N.Y.2d 382, 389 (1999).
Here, Magistrate Judge McCarthy correctly found that the non-competition covenant contained in Defendant Hennig's employment agreement with Elexco was unenforceable since it far exceeded the scope of Elexco's legitimate business interest. The covenant as drafted contains no geographical restriction, is not limited to the seismic support services provided by Defendant during his employment, and is not limited to clients Defendant developed relationships with while employed by Elexco. Instead, it purports to restrict Defendant from engaging in any business that competes with Elexco. This would seem to apply not only to the entire seismic support services industry worldwide, but would also apply to services that Defendant did not provide during his employment with Elexco. See Silipos v. Bickel, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54946 (SDNY 2006) (New York courts rarely find worldwide restrictions reasonable in any context); Heartland Securities Corp. v. Gerstenblatt, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3496 (2000) (finding restrictive covenants without any geographical limitations to be unreasonable).
Moreover, the covenant, as drafted, prevents Defendant from soliciting any of Elexco's customers regardless of whether Defendant had established relationships with those individuals, or performed services for them, while employed by Plaintiff. The covenant is clearly overbroad and cannot be enforced. BDO Seidman v. Hirschberg, 93 N.Y.2d 382, 392 (1999) (extending an anti-competitive covenant to an employer's clients with whom relationships with defendant did not develop through assignments to perform direct, substantive services constitutes a greater restraint than is necessary to protect an employer's legitimate business interest); FTI Consulting, Inc. v. Graves, 2007 U.S. Dist. ...