Reynolds and Reynolds Company v. James Mikuta, No. 15-3347 (6th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 16a0088n.06 No. 15-3347 FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Feb 10, 2016 DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk REYNOLDS AND REYNOLDS COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMES MIKUTA, Defendant-Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO MEMORANDUM OPINION BEFORE: NORRIS, CLAY, and COOK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. James Mikuta worked for fifteen years as a sales representative for Reynolds and Reynolds Company (“Reynolds”). He resigned in February 2013 and took a position with a competitor. After his resignation, Reynolds sought to enforce a 2007 employment agreement through arbitration that included non-compete and confidentiality provisions. The arbitrator ultimately ordered a permanent injunction that prohibited Mikuta from contacting 154 of his former customers for three years or from using any proprietary material of Reynolds. Thereafter, Reynolds filed suit in federal court under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16, to enforce the arbitration award. The district court complied. Mikuta appeals. Specifically, he challenges federal diversity jurisdiction and argues that the proper forum was the Ohio Court of Common Pleas where he filed suit seeking modification of the arbitrator’s decision. He contends in the alternative that the district court should have abstained pending the state court’s decision. Reynolds and Reynolds Co. v. Mikuta No. 15-3347 We have had an opportunity to review the record below, the briefs submitted by the parties, and to hear oral argument. In our view, the district court correctly concluded that diversity jurisdiction was proper and it did not abuse its discretion in declining to abstain. Because we agree with the analysis of the district court’s orders of December 31, 2014 (finding that it had diversity jurisdiction), February 11, 2015 (declining to abstain and enforcing arbitration), and March 31, 2015 (overruling defendant’s motion for reconsideration), a reasoned opinion by this court would serve no useful purpose. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
