to find that the arbitrator did not willfully flout known, governing law in reading School of Rock I to hold that California law does not apply to the restrictive covenant. Local 863, 773 F.2d at 533. Here, the arbitrator plainly did not willfully flout known, governing law, because, as the District Court observed, section 16600 is not part of the CFIL. Alternatively, Smith argues that the restrictive covenant is invalid under Pennsylvania law. The District Court concluded that the non-compete provision is valid under Pennsylvania law. School of Rock II, 2009 WL 426175, at *3 (citing Piercing Pagoda, Inc. v. Hoffner, 465 Pa. 500, 351 A.2d 207 (1976)). Piercing Pagoda upheld a restrictive covenant in the context of a franchisee/franchisor relationship. Piercing Pagoda, 351 A.2d at 211 (<HOLDING>). As previously noted, the District Court need
holding that a restrictive covenant with a tenyear term was unenforceable holding that a restrictive covenant will be upheld where a franchisor has a protectable interest in the sale of his franchise holding that franchisor has an interest in the goodwill its franchise has created holding that restrictive covenants in franchise agreements are enforceable to protect the basic product which the franchisor has to sell namely the franchise itself   holding that franchisor not only has valid interest in protecting good will it has developed but it also has an interest in being able to place a new franchisee at or near the same location where its goodwill has been created