Reynolds and Reynolds Company v. James Mikuta

Filing

Per Curiam OPINION filed : AFFIRMED the judgment of the district court, decision not for publication. Alan E. Norris, Circuit Judge; Eric L. Clay, Circuit Judge and Deborah L. Cook, Circuit Judge.

Case: 15-3347

Document: 26-1

Filed: 02/10/2016

Page: 1

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION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.

Case: 15-3347

Document: 26-1

Filed: 02/10/2016

Page: 2

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