Employment agreements

employment agreements expertly

EXPERTLY REPRESENTING EMPLOYERS

Robert Hudock has dedicated his practice to expertly representing employers in all employment-related claims, including employment agreement claims. He has achieved favorable results both pursuing and defending against several types of employment agreement matters, including those related to breach of employment contracts, noncompete and nonsolicitation agreements, and highly technical trade secrets claims.

Pursuing or defending against contract claims requires an approach and presentation that is sophisticated, yet straightforward in its explanation of the facts and its demonstration of the one clear result. Mr. Hudock has used this approach to achieve results for employers that others did not think were possible.

PREPARING COMPREHENSIVE AND EFFECTIVE AGREEMENTS

In addition to representing employers in litigation and claims, Hudock Employment Law Group prepares agreements to protect its clients.

Several types of agreements can be valuable in the context of the employment relationship, including:

  • Contracts governing the terms and conditions of the employment relationship
  • Agreements governing specific arrangements and expectations, such as compensation agreements, settlement agreements, performance improvement plans, and meal period agreements
  • Severance agreements
  • Nondisclosure and confidentiality agreements
  • Noncompete agreements based on trade secrets and confidential information

A DEDICATED ADVOCATE ON YOUR BEHALF

Employment-related contract claims can be hugely disruptive to your business, and the laws in California can be confusing. Hudock Employment Law Group has the dedication, experience, and highly intelligent approach to best represent you in these matters—so you can move forward and focus on your business. To schedule a consultation, call 213-418-9444 or send an email.

TESTIMONIALS

Rob is an extremely bright and talented attorney. Ethically, he is off the charts. A good man who wants to do well by his clients.

Attorney Peer Reviewer

lawyers.com

I've had the pleasure of working with Rob on several litigation matters, he is a masterful problem-solver. Put simply, Rob is the attorney I want on my team.

Mike Minguet

Employment Law Defense Attorney, St. John Wallace Brennan & Folan LLP

It was apparent from the beginning that Rob had a unique combination of skills and attributes that we needed for a favorable outcome. He clearly stands out as a great choice for any business owner who wants quality and value for their legal budget.

Eric Wolf

Bell Canyon Board of Directors President, Finance Professional, Entrepreneur
wage and hour case study

CASE STUDY

COMPETITOR’S ATTEMPT TO INVALIDATE CLIENT’S NONCOMPETE AGREEMENTS NATIONWIDE DISMISSED

A direct competitor to an information technology reseller filed a complaint requesting that the court declare all the reseller’s noncompete agreements with its employees invalid, nationwide. The competitor wanted the freedom to pilfer all the reseller’s employees at will.

 

Only California and two other states do not allow noncompete agreements, but a California case holds that in some circumstances, California’s interest in promoting competition and employee mobility may justify invalidating noncompete agreements between non–California employers and employees. The competitor focused on this case and its reasoning to support its claim.

 

Rather than engage in expensive litigation or argue what the competitor wanted to argue, Mr. Hudock demonstrated in an early motion to dismiss how the competitor had no standing to assert declaratory relief claims against the reseller because:

  • the competitor was not a party to or beneficiary of the noncompete agreements,
  • the reseller had not initiated or threatened litigation, and
  • no former reseller employee was employed by the competitor.

Mr. Hudock also neutralized the California case by demonstrating that federal procedural law applied, and therefore the California case was irrelevant.

 

Based on Mr. Hudock’s arguments, the court dismissed the competitor’s declaratory relief claims, and the competitor’s tactic failed.