However, those cases are similarly inapplicable because they did not address the question before this Court—whether the invalidation of a noncompete clause renders the remainder of the contract unenforceable. See T.J.T., Inc. v. Mori , 152 Idaho 1, 266 P.3d 476 (2011) (discussing the enforceability of a noncompete clause under California law); Intermountain Eye & Laser Ctrs., P.L.L.C. v. Miller , 142 Idaho 218, 127 P.3d 121 (2005) (discussing the enforceability of a noncompete and whether a district court should have employed the "blue pencil" doctrine, but not considering whether the underlying agreement was severable); Freiburger v. J-U-B Eng'rs, Inc. , 141 Idaho 415, 111 P.3d 100 (2005) (discussing whether an employer had a legitimate business interest to protect and whether a noncompete clause served that interest, but not whether the agreement was severable); Pinnacle Performance , 135 Idaho at 367–70, 17 P.3d at 311–14 (discussing the enforceability of a noncompete clause, but not its severability from the underlying contract). In this case, the district court concluded that "the Nevada prong of the noncompete provision was not an essential part of the ... Agreement and could be eliminated without affecting the rest of the contract."