Case Citation
Legal Case Name

Estee Lauder Companies Inc. v. Batra Case Brief

District Court, S.D. New York2006Docket #2185934
430 F. Supp. 2d 158 24 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 897 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26296 2006 WL 1188183 Contracts Federal Courts Intellectual Property Employment Law

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
4 min read

tl;dr: An employer sought to enforce a non-compete agreement against a former executive. The court upheld the contract’s New York choice-of-law clause despite California’s contrary public policy, finding New York had sufficient interest, and granted a modified injunction to protect the employer’s confidential strategic information.

Legal Significance: This case demonstrates how courts analyze and enforce contractual choice-of-law provisions for non-compete agreements, particularly when they conflict with the strong public policy of the employee’s home state, and affirms the judicial power to modify overbroad covenants.

Estee Lauder Companies Inc. v. Batra Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Defendant Shashi Batra, a California resident, was a senior executive for plaintiff Estee Lauder, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New York. Batra’s employment agreement contained a 12-month non-compete covenant, a non-solicitation clause, and a confidentiality provision. The contract included a New York choice-of-law clause and a “pay-to-sit” provision requiring Estee Lauder to pay Batra’s salary during the non-compete period. As a global brand manager, Batra was privy to highly confidential information, including multi-year product development pipelines, marketing strategies, and financial plans for the R+F and Darphin brands. Batra resigned to accept a position as Worldwide General Manager for Perricone, a direct competitor. Prior to his departure, Batra used company resources to work on Perricone matters and solicited another Estee Lauder executive for assistance. Batra filed a declaratory judgment action in California seeking to void the non-compete under California law. Two days later, Estee Lauder filed suit in the Southern District of New York, seeking a preliminary injunction to enforce the agreement.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Should a non-compete agreement’s New York choice-of-law provision be enforced against a California-based employee when California has a strong public policy against such agreements, and if so, is the covenant reasonable and enforceable via preliminary injunction?

Yes. The court enforced the New York choice-of-law provision, finding that New Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Ex

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Should a non-compete agreement’s New York choice-of-law provision be enforced against a California-based employee when California has a strong public policy against such agreements, and if so, is the covenant reasonable and enforceable via preliminary injunction?

Conclusion

This case serves as a key precedent on the interstate enforcement of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupi

Legal Rule

Under New York choice-of-law rules, a contractual choice-of-law provision will be honored Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostru

Legal Analysis

The court first conducted a choice-of-law analysis under the Restatement (Second) of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dol

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • Court grants a preliminary injunction to enforce a non-compete agreement but
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

Where you see wrong or inequality or injustice, speak out, because this is your country. This is your democracy. Make it. Protect it. Pass it on.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+