This case was last updated from PACER on 09/25/2021 at 06:57:56 (UTC).

Dexcom, Inc. et al v. Medtronic, Inc. et al

Case Summary

On September 24, 2021, Dexcom, Inc. (“Dexcom'') and Charles Boykin(“Boykin”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), represented by Brook T. Barnes of Procopio Cory Hargreaves & Savitch, filed a contract lawsuit against Meditronic, Inc. (“Defendant” ) and Does 1-20, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief along with cost of suit for alleged unlawful non-compete and non-solicitation provisions drafted by the Defendant. This case was filed in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of California with Judge M. James Lorenz and Judge Linda Lopez presiding.

 

In the complaint, the Plaintiffs alleged that, “In 1999, Boykin accepted a position at Medtronic. On or about March 4, 2020, Medtronic required Boykin to sign a new at-will employment agreement, entitled “Employee Agreement.” Unassisted by counsel, Boykin signed the Employee Agreement as a condition to receive his “stay bonus” instead of pursuing a new opportunity in another division of Medtronic. A true and correct copy of the Employee Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.”

 

The Plaintiffs also alleged that, “Effective January 2, 2021, Boykin left Medtronic after Medtronic terminated his employment for cause. Medtronic alleged that Boykin did not follow expense reimbursement policies. In or around February 2021, Boykin started working at Dexcom as its Senior Director Global Technical Support.”

 

And that “On April 22, 2021, Boykin wrote back to Medtronic informing Medtronic that he had returned all Medtronic property and materials, and that he had not disclosed and did not intend to disclose any of Medtronic’s confidential information to any company or third party. A true and correct copy of Boykin’s April 22, 2021 letter is attached as Exhibit 3.”

 

The Plaintiffs further alleged that, “On July 19, 2021, Dexcom responded to Medtronic’s July 14, 2021 letter, reminding Medtronic that a) Dexcom has not received any confidential and/or proprietary information from Boykin; b) Boykin has not disclosed any confidential and/or proprietary information and Dexcom instructed Boykin to not rely on any confidential and/or proprietary information from Medtronic; c) the non-compete provisions in the Employee Agreement were unenforceable in California, where Boykin resides, as well as Texas, where Boykin formerly resided; and, d) Medtronic’s inevitable disclosure theory that Boykin could not work for Dexcom without violating his non-compete obligations had been rejected by California courts as an impermissible restraint on employment mobility. A true and correct copy of Dexcom’s July 19, 2021 letter is attached as Exhibit 7.”

 

The Plaintiffs laid down three claims for relief. The first and second claims for relief are for declaratory relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1060 and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 by all Plaintiffs. The third claim alleged is for violation of California Unfair Competition Law Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.

 

In their prayer for relief, the Plaintiffs requested the Court to grant a declaration that the present matter may properly proceed in California, that California law governs the enforceability of the Non-Compete Clause and the Non-Solicitation Clause and that the Non-Compete Clause and the Non-Solicitation Clause are invalid and unenforceable against the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs also requested the Court for an order enjoining Medtronic from continuing its attempts at enforcing the Non-Compete Clause and the Non-Solicitation Clause against the Plaintiffs along with restitution and costs of suit or any other relief that Court deems just and proper.

 

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.

 

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    3:21-CV-01677

  • Filing Date:

    09/24/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

M. James Lorenz

Referral Judge

Linda Lopez

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

Dexcom, Inc.

Charles Boykin

Defendants

Medtronic, Inc.

Does 1-20

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

Brook T Barnes

Attorney at Procopio Cory Hargreaves & Savitch

525 B Street, 2200

San Diego, CA 92101

 

Court Documents

#3

(#3) Exhibit List (Exhibits 1-7 to Complaint) by Dexcom, Inc.. (Barnes, Brook) (jpp). (Entered: 09/24/2021)

#2

(#2) Summons Issued. Counsel receiving this notice electronically should print this summons and serve it in accordance with Rule 4, Fed.R.Civ.P and LR 4.1. (fth) (rmc). (Entered: 09/24/2021)

1 #1

Civil Cover Sheet

1 #1

Main Document

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/24/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) Exhibit List (Exhibits 1-7 to Complaint) by Dexcom, Inc.. (Barnes, Brook) (jpp). (Entered: 09/24/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) Summons Issued. Counsel receiving this notice electronically should print this summons and serve it in accordance with Rule 4, Fed.R.Civ.P and LR 4.1. (fth) (rmc). (Entered: 09/24/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against Medtronic, Inc.; Does 1-20 ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ACASDC-16162324.), filed by Dexcom, Inc., Charles Boykin. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)The new case number is 3:21-cv-1677-L-LL. Judge M. James Lorenz and Magistrate Judge Linda Lopez are assigned to the case. (Barnes, Brook) (fth) (rmc). (Entered: 09/24/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where DEXCOM INC. is a litigant

Latest cases where Medtronic, Inc. is a litigant