PCM Sales Inc. v. Vantage Point Corp.

Blake Reed lived in Illinois and worked as a sales representative for PCM Sales Inc. (PCM) (plaintiff), a California information-technology-services corporation with a substantial presence in Illinois and Ohio. PCM had Reed execute an agreement that indefinitely prohibited Reed from sharing PCM’s confidential information and temporarily barred Reed from soliciting PCM customers or working for competitors for one year after leaving PCM. The agreement’s choice-of-law clause chose Ohio law. When Reed resigned from PCM, he moved to Wisconsin and began working for direct competitor Vantage Point Corporation (Vantage) (defendant), a Wisconsin information-technology-services corporation, just two months later. When Reed mentioned the noncompete, Vantage did not investigate or refuse to hire him. Immediately upon beginning work for Vantage, Reed solicited PCM customers, using customer information stolen from PCM to do so. PCM sued Reed and Vantage in an Illinois federal district court, asserting a breach-of-contract claim against Reed and a tortious-interference-with-contract claim against Vantage. Vantage was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. Regarding the breach-of-contract claim, the district judge concluded that the agreement’s choice-of-law clause was enforceable. Applying Ohio law, the judge determined that the agreement was enforceable with certain modifications to the noncompete restrictions. The court ordered Reed to cease working for Vantage for one year. Reed avoided damages liability by filing for bankruptcy. PCM then sued Vantage in a Wisconsin federal district court, Vantage’s home state, asserting a tortious-interference claim under Wisconsin law. The Wisconsin district judge considered the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment, which turned in part on whose law governed the enforceability of the noncompete agreement.