On 26 October 2005, the applicant brought an action for a declaration against T-Mobile, the defendant, before the Superior Court of San Diego. Their complaint sought to state that the non-compete clauses in their employment contracts are governed by California law and that they contradicted Cal`s explicit terms. Bus. and the Pr. Code, paragraph 16600, which provides that „except as provided for in this chapter, any contract preventing a person from exercising a profession, trade or legal activity of any kind whatsoever is not valid to this extent.“ The following day, T-Mobile withdrew the plaintiff`s appeal to the Federal Court, asserting that jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C§ 1332 was appropriate because of the total diversity of parties. Swenson, for its part, brought an application for a declaration of insolvency and claimed that its action for a declaration did not fulfil the amount of the dispute. On 21 On 27 November 2005, that court dismissed the applicant`s application for detention and found that her action for a declaration fulfilled the value of the dispute. On July 20, 2004, Swenson signed a second agreement as a condition of granting stock options for which it was entitled. Id., ex 2, p. 34.

This agreement, like the 2004 employment contract, contained a one-year agreement not to compete and provided that the public and/or federal courts of King County would have jurisdiction and jurisdiction. Id., e.g., e.g. 2, pp. 26, 28. Swenson also participated in T-Mobile`s 2005 supplemental cash flow plan, which contained a non-compete clause and provides for the application of Washington law. Id., ex 2, pp. 47, 49. However, this agreement, signed by Swenson in June 2005, expressly states that the agreements do not apply to California residents. Id., e.g. 2, p. 47. Finally, in 2005, Swenson signed an employment contract which gave him additional thought.

This agreement again provided for a one-year non-competition clause and provided for the application of Washington law. Id., e.g. 2, pp. 57-59. . . .