Former DraftKings Executive Challenges Court Ruling on Employment Restrictions

Jurisdictional Dispute

Hermalyn’s legal team has filed an appeal in the First Circuit Court, seeking to overturn the temporary injunction that prevents him from soliciting former customers and employees from DraftKings or disclosing any confidential information obtained during his tenure there.

The core of Hermalyn’s appeal hinges on jurisdictional issues. His attorneys argue that Massachusetts District Court Judge Julie A. Kobik made a legal error in determining that Massachusetts was the appropriate venue for the case.

Hermalyn asserts that California, where he now resides, should be the venue. The brief emphasizes that California has more employee-friendly laws regarding non-compete agreements, making it a more suitable jurisdiction.

Background and Legal Arguments

DraftKings is headquartered in Massachusetts, but during his employment with the company, Hermalyn lived in New Jersey. He relocated to California shortly before accepting a position with Fanatics.

The appeal argues that because Hermalyn now resides and works in California, the state’s laws and public policies, which are more favorable to employees, should apply.

The appeal brief specifically highlights that the district court failed to narrow the geographic scope of the injunction to exclude California, noting: “The district court erred by declining to narrow the geographic scope of the resulting provisions of the preliminary injunction to exclude California in light of its law and public policy barring the enforcement of such covenants against California employees of California companies working in California.”