Outcome
The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order granting a preliminary injunction to Fielden Hanson to enforce a blue-penciled noncompetition agreement against the Duong physicians, holding that a district court may blue-pencil an unreasonable noncompetition agreement when the agreement itself contains a blue-penciling provision.
What This Ruling Means
# Case Summary: Duong v. Fielden Hanson Isaacs Miyada Robison Yeh, Ltd.
**What Happened**
Dr. Duong and other physicians worked for a law firm called Fielden Hanson. When they left the company, they wanted to start competing against their former employer. However, their employment contracts included a noncompetition agreement—a rule preventing them from working for competitors. The physicians challenged this agreement in court, arguing it was too restrictive and unfair.
**What the Court Decided**
Nevada's highest court ruled in favor of Fielden Hanson. The court allowed the company to enforce the noncompetition agreement, even though parts of it were unreasonable. This was possible because the original contract included a "blue-penciling" clause—language stating that a court could modify the agreement if needed to make it fair.
**Why This Matters for Workers**
This ruling shows that noncompetition agreements can be enforced against workers in Nevada, even if they seem overly broad. However, workers should know that these agreements can sometimes be modified by courts to be more reasonable. If you're signing a noncompetition clause, carefully review whether it includes blue-penciling language, as this affects whether courts can adjust its terms.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.