CH20 also filed an application to dismiss the filing action filed by Meras and its employees in California, based on the choice of the forum clause. In deciding whether the forum selection clause should be applied, the California court considered whether enforcement would lead to a violation of California`s public order, which would favor non-compete clauses for non-compete agreements. The employees and Meras argued that the application of the forum selection clause would be contrary to California`s public policy because the D.C. court had already ruled that the Washington law was being enforced, and if the case were dismissed in California, the D.C. court would likely find that the non-competition agreement was applicable. Thus, the employees and Meras argued that the application of the forum selection clause would be contrary to California`s policy of not imposing non-competition clauses. The California court contradicted and ruled that the selection clause could be found to be forensic because it would lead to a choice of law that the complainants considered in poor taste, “confusing” or confusing the analysis of the applicability of forum choice with the choice of legal analysis. As a result, the California court dismissed the California declaration discharge case, thus forcing the parties to question the applicability of non-competition in federal court in Washington and under Washington law. In the past, it has been generally accepted that extra-state non-competition prohibitions could be unenforceable if the employee is the first to sue in a California court and ask the court to declare that the non-competition agreement is not applicable. This strategy was based on a federal precedent known as the “first-to-file” rule. After the first motion, when two or more cases are filed in different federal courts concerning similar facts, facts and parties, the second is dismissed or suspended in order to promote the effectiveness and consistency of decisions. It was therefore considered that the filing of a complaint, which initially asked California to declare that a non-competitive agreement was not applicable, would de facto lead to an election of California law, which would lead to the California court`s ruling that the non-competition agreement was not applicable.