Slashdot Mirror
21st Century Fox Sues Netflix Over Executive Poaching (latimes.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Los Angeles Times: 21st Century Fox on Friday filed a lawsuit against Netflix, accusing the streaming video giant of illegally recruiting two of its executives who were under contract. The suit, which was filed Friday in California Superior Court in Los Angeles, says Netflix engaged in a "brazen campaign to unlawfully target, recruit, and poach valuable Fox executives by illegally inducing them to break their employment contracts with Fox to work at Netflix." The lawsuit was sparked following the exits of two Fox executives: Marcos Waltenberg, who made the jump to Netflix earlier this year, previously worked as a marketing executive at Twentieth Century Fox Film; Tara Flynn, who made the move to Netflix just last week, had been the vice president of creative affairs at Fox 21 TV Studios. Fox alleges that Netflix pursued and hired the executives even though it knew they each had employment contracts that were still in effect, according to the complaint. The Century City-based studio is seeking an injunction to prevent Netflix from interfering with its employment contracts, as well as compensatory and punitive damages. A Netflix spokesperson said in a statement: "We intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously. We do not believe Fox's use of fixed term employment contracts in this manner are enforceable. We believe in employee mobility and will fight for the right to hire great colleagues no matter where they work."
The rats are leaving the sinking ship.
This suit will be thrown out before the ink dries. Employee mobility is very strongly enforced in California.
Two people have contracts with Fox that, presumably, say they can't work for someone else. Neflix, who has no contract with Fox, hires those people. Fox sues Netfix and not their former employees.
How the fuck is this not a SLAPP-like bullshit case that gets thrown out teh second a judge sees it? How can you sue someone for breaking a contract they aren't party too?
I didn't think employment contracts of any kind were binding in California.
Please try reading the summary again, dude.
They used to work for Fox. Fox is the aggressor here, not the poor widdle guy trying to defend himself against big bad Netflix.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
INAS (I am not a shyster), but working in CA for decades.
Non competes are only binding in California when the people involved are 'business principles' and the non compete is narrowly structured.
A CEO's non compete is binding (if narrow) a regular employees is not.
These are 'executives' so maybe, but odds are low.
Long term employment contracts in the USA cannot be held for 'specific performance' as that gets close to slavery (history: Indentured servants), but damages can be assessed.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Anyone who'd work for Rupert Murdoch probably should be given the gravlox treatment.
the new guard is bringing in the old guard into the new system.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
From back when Microsoft hired pretty much the whole of Borlands programming tools staff ?
Yes, it's just as well that you are not providing legal services:
That page lists the only exception:
These people may own some shares, but that doesn't make them an "owner" for this purpose.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
So...Slashdot is also a mundane contract law blog website now?
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
They are just taking potshots at each other.
The Hatfields and the McCoys didn't actually have to *hit* each other, to feel good about *shooting* at each other. Like any feud, it kind of doesn't matter if the shots *hit*, only that there is continued shooting.
Not really. He's said the exact same thing that you have, he said it first, and you've simply failed to appreciate that he had.
You might want to google the term "business principal." You should also be aware that another of the exceptions involves trade secrets, which executive level employees are far more likely to know (and reuse) than non-executive employees. Just as GP said, it's not a slam dunk with an EVP by any means, but you're equally wrong in ignoring the other CA exceptions.
You, also, are wrong. He said:
This is untrue. A CEO's non-compete is just as unenforceable as a regular employee's is. You, like many others, may think that not to be true, but it is. In order for a non-compete to be enforceable, the person has to be an owner. "business principle" doesn't cut it.
As for trade secrets, you can't stop someone from working for a competitor just because you fear that they may reveal trade secrets. From the web page that I linked to:
Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of "bright-line rule"?
Read the page that I linked to. Try doing some googling and reading yourself. This article looks relevant: https://www.wsgr.com/WSGR/Disp...
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Your source is wrong.
As to the rest:
1. A business principal is an owner, partner, or other person with a material fractional interest in the business and an ability to control. I don't know where you're getting your definition of business principal from, but they mean the same thing. BPC 16601 specifically states:
"For the purposes of this section, "owner of a business entity" means any partner, in the case of a business entity that is a partnership... or any member, in the case of a business entity that is
a limited liability company... or any owner of capital stock in the case of a business entity that is a corporation."
2. California does have a trade secrets exception; you need to read Muggill v. Reuben H. Donnelley Corp -- Edwards v. Arthur Andersen expressly refused to eliminate that exception.
3. CEOs and other executive level staff are far more likely to have knowledge of trade secrets, and to be expected to use that knowledge in new positions. It is not a slam dunk that you can exclude an executive level employee from employment in another business (and you can't in businesses in different fields or positions with different responsibilities within the same field), but if the responsibilities of the new position require exploiting the old trade secret knowledge, you can effectively enjoin that use and, as a result, exlcude that person from that job.
I understand "bright line rule" just fine. I also understand that there is no bright line rule like the one that you suggest, that the BPA exceptions are broader than you believe, and that the trade secret exception to your so-called "bright line rule" still exists and is enforced in California.
I merely allow for the possibility that he could be excluded from the job (technically, performing certain job responsibilities) under California law, you're the one arguing that there's no possible way for that to happen. You're wrong. You can't point to one California court decision that states otherwise, and, no, court decisions which don't even discuss trade secrets issues do not suffice to show that Muggill does not apply.
It all depends upon how objectively reasonable that fear is. I suggest that you begin by reading the cases that actually cite Muggill, rather than implicitly trusting a spamvertisement page that completely misrepresents the Dowell decision. That court said:
"Although we doubt the continued viability of the common law trade secret exception to covenants not to compete, we need not
resolve the issue here. Even assuming the exception exists, we agree with the trial court that it has no application here. This is
so because the noncompete and nonsolicitation clauses in the agreements are not narrowly tailored or carefully limited to the
protection of trade secrets, but are so broadly worded as to restrain competition"
The California Court of Appeal can doubt all it wants, but it can't overrule the California Supreme Court. Until the latter overrules Muggill, it remains the law.
Are you a complete idiot? Not one of your references supports your point. Not one of them supports the idea that there is a trade secret exception to the voiding of non-compete agreements. For example, let's look at the outcome of Muggill v. Reuben H. Donnelley Corp. What did the Supreme Court of California decide: "The judgment is reversed.". This was a reversal of an adverse judgment under which the plaintiff lost his pension due to a non-compete agreement. In other words, the Supreme Court agreed that the non-compete was void.
As for E Edwards v. Arthur Andersen: " We conclude that Andersen's noncompetition agreement was invalid."
Here is another page that shows you are wrong:
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Then you should actually read the cases, not merely the conclusions.
Muggill:
"With certain exceptions not relevant here, section 16600 of the Business and Professions Code provides that "every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void." This section invalidates provisions in employment contracts prohibiting an employee from working for a competitor after completion of his employment or imposing a penalty if he does so (Chamberlain v. Augustine, 172 Cal. 285, 288 [156 P. 479]; Morris v. Harris, 127 Cal.App.2d 476, 478 [274 P.2d 22]; Davis v. Jointless Fire Brick Co., 300 F. 1, 4), unless they are necessary to protect the employer's trade secrets (Gordon v. Landau, 49 Cal.2d 690, 694 [321 P.2d 456])."
Edwards:
"4 We do not here address the applicability of the so-called trade secret exception to section 16600, as Edwards does not dispute that portion of his
agreement or contend that the provision of the noncompetition agreement prohibiting him from recruiting Andersenâ(TM)s employees violated section 16600."
You keep bringing up side issues like "inevitable disclosure," yet Muggill says what it says, applies where it applies, and continues to do so.
The best part of this argument is that the Fox case doesn't have anything to do with non-compete agreements, but rather Intentional interference with contractual relations.
If you sign a contact to work for me for a year, and you break the contract, I can indeed pursue you for damages. If some other party, like Netflix, is aware of the contract and induces you to break it, I can pursue them for damages and an injunction to prevent future poaching. Nothing in California law prohibits an employee from agreeing to employment for a term, and crying about California's theories concerning non-competes is not a defense to that claim.
I can't decide if you have the intelligence of a light bulb, or are trolling.
In Edwards, the court says nothing one way or the other about the applicability of trade secrets. Even your own quote shows this. Just because one side or the other of a lawsuit does not dispute a point does not make it a binding decision by the court, applicable to other cases.
As for the quote from Muggill, that is mere dicta and has no legal force. If you read the cases quoted in Muggill, they don't support the proposition that a non-compete can be enforced, only the proposition that a trade secret clause can be enforced. In both of those cases, there was an actual use of trade secrets.
The reason that you are quoting from cases that only incidentally touch on the issue is that you don't have a single case to support your point.
Finally, your point about this not being about non-compete, go back to HornWumpus's post, to which I replied. That was the first discussion of non-compete. I corrected him, and you jumped in to attempt to correct me. So don't complain about discussing non-competes when you were discussing non-competes.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Yes, because lower courts simply and routinely ignore statements of law that appear in their respective supreme court decisions as "dicta."
I'll go back to practicing law for a living now. It's hard to afford light bulbs on six figures...
You think that I should be impressed by your claimed six figure income? LOL.
Let me rephrase your statement: "Anonymous Coward claims to have modest income."
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
I'd like to poach some Fox executives.
Fox executives are the Most Dangerous Game...