To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
As we have previously blogged about, in 2016 the Nevada
Supreme Court refused to adopt the blue pencil doctrine
and held that Nevada courts could not modify over-broad restrictive
covenants. The following year, we alerted readers that the Nevada
legislature amended Nevada Revised Statute 613, governing
non-competition agreements. Among other things, the amendment
granted courts the authority to blue-pencil
non-competition agreements, overturning the Nevada Supreme
Court s 2016 decision in
Golden Road Motor Inn, Inc.
v. Islam.
Now, the Nevada Supreme Court chimed in again on the blue
As we have
previously blogged about, in 2016 the Nevada Supreme Court refused to adopt the “blue pencil” doctrine and held that Nevada courts could not modify over-broad restrictive covenants. The following year, we alerted readers that the Nevada legislature amended Nevada Revised Statute 613, governing non-competition agreements. Among other things, the amendment granted courts the authority to “blue-pencil” non-competition agreements, overturning the Nevada Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in
Golden Road Motor Inn, Inc. v. Islam.
Now, the Nevada Supreme Court chimed in again on the “blue pencil” doctrine. In
Duong v. Fielden Hanson Isaacs Miyada Robison Yeh, Ltd., two doctors signed noncompetition agreements in 2016 in exchange for continued employment subsequent to a merger. The agreements prohibited the doctors from working at certain facilities upon termination of their employment relationship. The agreements notably contained an express blue-penciling provisi
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
The Nevada Supreme Court recently addressed the question of whether lower courts may blue-pencil an otherwise unenforceable noncompetition agreement pursuant to a provision in the agreement that allows for court modification to redeem unreasonably restrictive clauses. The court’s decision is instructive not only for Nevada employers but for all businesses that operate in states with similar statutory structures.
Brief History and Background
The question of whether Nevada courts could judicially modify an overbroad noncompetition agreement was seemingly answered in the negative by the Nevada Supreme Court in 2016 (
In
Golden Road Motor Inn, Inc. v. Islam, 132 Nev. 476, 488, 376 P.3d 151, 159 (2016), the Nevada Supreme Court held that district courts cannot, on their own, blue-pencil a noncompetition agreement to remove unreasonably restrictive, and thus unenforceable, aspects.
SeeNevada Supreme Court Refuses To Blue Pencil Unreasonable Non-Compete The Nevada legislature was not in accord and the following year enacted NRS 613.195, which requires district courts to blue-pencil unreasonable noncompetition agreements and enforce the revised agreement. 2017 Nev. Stat., ch. 324, § 1, at 1861. That would seem to be the end of the story, but it wasn t. Left unanswered was the effect of NRS 613.195 on agreements entered into before the statute was enacted.
Legal Disclaimer
You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.