Gulfport OB-GYN, P.A. v. Dukes, Dukes, Keating & Faneca, P.A.

283 So. 3d 676 (2019)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Gulfport OB-GYN, P.A. v. Dukes, Dukes, Keating & Faneca, P.A.

Mississippi Supreme Court
283 So. 3d 676 (2019)

KD

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…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 805,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership