P is a sign company that designs, fabricates, installs, and services custom-manufactured signs. D was a custom salesman for Art-N-Sign for more than 10 years. P entered into a strategic alliance with Art-N-Sign, and in January 2007 P acquired Art-N-Sign’s customer lists, files, quotes, photos, artwork, designs, sketches, sign-service histories, and photos, marketing literature, and brand marks along with other various intellectual property. On January 20, 2007, D met with P to discuss working for P. D knew that he would be required to sign the non-compete agreement as a condition of employment but the specific terms of the non-compete were not discussed. D signed the employment offer and the offer contained a clause referring to the noncompete agreement. The employment agreement identified North Dakota as the choice of law for resolution of disputes. D signed the non-compete agreement the next month. That agreement identifies Minnesota as the choice of law for the resolution of disputes. On June 6, 2007, D gave his two-week notice of resignation and went to work for Indigo SignWorks, a North Dakota company. P sued D. The district court determined that Minnesota was the proper choice of law. P obtained a temporary restraining order and then obtained a temporary injunction enjoining D from working for Indigo SignWorks. D appealed. D argues that North Dakota law should be applied because it is the law that governs the employment agreement.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.