Gulfport OB-GYN, P.A. v. Dukes, Dukes, Keating & Faneca, P.A.
Mississippi Supreme Court
283 So. 3d 676 (2019)
- Written by Kate Douglas, JD
Facts
Gulfport OB-GYN, P.A. (Gulfport) (plaintiff) retained Dukes, Dukes, Keating & Faneca, P.A. (Dukes) (defendant) to assist with negotiating Gulfport’s hiring of Dr. Donielle Daigle and to draft the relevant employment agreement. Attorney Je’Nell Blum (defendant) was primarily responsible for the matter. Blum drafted an employment agreement providing that Daigle would not compete with Gulfport within 50 miles of Memorial Hospital in Gulfport for three years “following termination of her employment by the Employer, regardless of cause.” Daigle could avoid the noncompete clause by paying Gulfport $150,000. Several years later, Daigle voluntarily left Gulfport and set up her own practice. Daigle sued Gulfport for unpaid compensation and asked the chancery court to declare the noncompetition covenant unenforceable. The chancery court ruled in Daigle’s favor, finding that the noncompetition clause did not apply because Gulfport did not terminate Daigle’s employment. Gulfport appealed but subsequently settled by paying Daigle $425,000. Gulfport then sued Dukes and Blum for malpractice. Specifically, Gulfport alleged that Dukes and Blum negligently drafted the noncompetition clause by including the phrase “following termination of her employment by the Employer.” The circuit court found that Gulfport failed to establish that Daigle would have accepted a broader noncompetition clause and therefore entered summary judgment against Gulfport. Gulfport appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ishee, J.)
Dissent (Griffis, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.