A Delaware court has dismissed a lawsuit against Dimitri Alexeev, a California resident, due to a lack of personal jurisdiction. The ruling came in the case of Aprio Advisory Group LLC v. Dmitri Alexeev, C.A. No. 2026-0508-JTL, filed on October 16, 2026. This decision is significant as it highlights the complexities of jurisdictional issues, especially when employment agreements involve multiple states.
The plaintiffs in this case, Aprio Advisory Group LLC, along with its affiliates Evolution Buyer LLC and Evolution Parent Holdings LLC, claimed that Alexeev had breached restrictive covenants after leaving his position at Aprio LLP, an accounting firm. The court's ruling affects not only Alexeev but also sets a precedent for how similar cases may be handled in the future, particularly those involving employees who reside in one state while their employer is based in another.
Background
The dispute arose after Alexeev, who held a small equity interest in Aprio's parent company, Aprio Advisory Group LLC, signed a restrictive covenant as a condition of a merger with a private equity-backed buyer. The merger, which closed on August 1, 2024, required all equity holders to agree to certain restrictions, including non-compete clauses. After leaving the firm in October 2025, Alexeev began competing by starting his own firm, Pheonix Tax LLC, prompting the buyer to sue him in Delaware.
Alexeev's legal team, led by attorneys from Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, argued that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. They contended that the restrictive covenant agreement he signed was voidable under California law, which prohibits requiring California employees to agree to litigate in a foreign state as a condition of employment. The plaintiffs, represented by Connolly Gallagher LLP and Ichter Davis LLC, maintained that the Delaware forum selection clause in the agreement should apply.
The Ruling
The court ruled in favor of Alexeev, stating that the only basis for personal jurisdiction was the Delaware forum provision in the restrictive covenant agreement. However, the court found that California law rendered this provision voidable at Alexeev's election, as he was a California resident who signed the agreement in California and performed his duties there. The court stated, "The provisions cannot support personal jurisdiction, and no other basis for personal jurisdiction exists."
This ruling indicates that the court recognized the importance of state laws governing employment agreements. The judge noted that California's statute, which protects employees from being forced to litigate outside their home state, applied in this case, thus invalidating the Delaware forum provision.
Impact
The court's decision has significant implications for employment agreements involving restrictive covenants. It reinforces the notion that employees cannot be compelled to litigate in a state that is not their home state if such a requirement violates local laws. This ruling may encourage other employees in similar situations to challenge jurisdictional claims based on the laws of their home states.
Moreover, the decision could prompt companies to reevaluate their employment contracts and the enforceability of forum selection clauses, especially when dealing with employees based in states with protective labor laws. The ruling serves as a reminder that businesses must consider the legal landscape of the states in which their employees reside.
What's Next
Following this ruling, the plaintiffs may consider appealing the decision. However, the court's clear application of California law suggests that the outcome may not change significantly on appeal. Details regarding any related cases were not available in the court filing.