Boston Scientific Corporation v. Takahashi, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-060-17)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS   SUFFOLK, so                                                                                            SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION 2017-02976 BLS 2     BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, Plaintiff   vs.   LYNN TAKAHASHI, GENE ZIGRA, JONATHAN OLSEN, and NUVECTRA CORPORATION Defendants   MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FORUM NON CONVENIENS   This is an action against three former employees of the plaintiff Boston Scientific Corporation (Boston Scientific) and their current employer, the  Nuvectra Corporation (Nuvectra) alleging misappropriation of confidential information and violations of a nonsolicitation clause in the individual defendants’ employment agreements with plaintiff.  Each  of those agreements contains clauses designating Massachusetts as the forum and Massachusetts law as the governing law for any legal disputes arising from the agreements.  The defendants now move to dismiss the action based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens.   This Court concludes that the Motion must be Denied. In support of their Motion, the defendants point out that at all relevant times, the former employees worked and resided in California.  Before their departure in September of this year, they worked for Boston Scientific’s sale team in the Los Angeles area; they currently work for Nuvectra, a competitor of Boston Scientific, as part of its sales team in the same geographical region.  Relying on G.L.c. 223 § 5A, the defendants argue that “the interest of substantial justice” supports dismissal of this action because the balance of private and public concerns favor a California forum.  Gianocostas v. Interface Grp.-Massachusetts Inc., 450 Mass. 715, 723 (2008).   In particular, they argue that  California’s strong policy against the enforcement of restrictive covenants suggests that this case is best decided in a California forum.  This Court is not convinced. The doctrine of forum non conveniens   “leaves much to the discretion of the court to which plaintiff’s resorts…”  Gulf Oil Corp., v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947) (outlining the public and private concerns a court should consider in applying the doctrine).  However, this Court must exercise that discretion keeping in mind that there is a strong presumption in favor of plaintiff’s choice of forum.  “Assuming jurisdiction and venue are proper, dismissal on the ground of forum non conveniens will rarely be granted; ‘unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff’s choice of forum should rarely be disturbed.’” Kearsarge Metallurgical Corp. v. Peerless Ins. Co., 383 Mass. 162 , 169 (1981) (footnote omitted), quoting from New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. Estes, 353 Mass. 90 , 95 (1967). See also Joly v. Albert Larocque Lumber, Ltd., 397 Mass. 43 (1986).   In the instant case, the defendants face an additional  hurdle in convincing this Court that dismissal is warranted in that each of the employment agreements designates Massachusetts as an appropriate forum.  Indeed, in one of […]

Read more...