Daily Archives: January 9, 2011

Jan 09 2011
Leave a comment
Customer Lists, Ready Ascertainability, Secrecy, Sister State Construction of UTSA, Trade Secrets

Eastern District of New York Holds That Contact List Is Not Entitled to Trade Secret Protection Because Information is Readily Duplicated Through Facebook or LinkedIn

Eastern District of New York Courthouse
Image by Ann Althouse via Flickr

In a sign of the times, District Judge Arthur D. Spatt of the Eastern District of New York adopted the recommendations of Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson who denied a motion for preliminary injunction in a trade secrets misappropriation case involving a customer list.  Sasqua Group, Inc. v. Courtney, No. CV 10-528(ADS)(AKT), 2010 WL 3613855 (E.D.N.Y. 2010 Aug. 2, 2010) (slip op.). The court reasoned that because the information could be properly acquired or readily duplicated through public databases such as Facebook and LinkedIn, the information was not entitled to trade secret protection.  Id. *23.

In sum, Plaintiffs have failed to prove a physical appropriation or copying of confidential information or wrongful disclosure or use of a trade secret. See Leo Silfen, 29 N.Y.2d at 389, 328 N.Y.S.2d at 424, 278 N.E.2d 636. The information in Sasqua’s database concerning the needs of its clients, their preferences, hiring practices, and business strategies, as well as Sasqua’s acquaintance with key decision-makers at those firms may well have been a protectable trade secret in the early years of Sasqua’s existence when greater time, energy and resources may have been necessary to acquire the level of detailed information to build and retain the business relationships at issue here. However, for good or bad, the exponential proliferation of information made available through full-blown use of the Internet and the powerful tools it provides to access such information in 2010 is a very different story. Continue reading →

Tagged , , , , , , ,
Jan 09 2011
Leave a comment
23(b)(2) Class, Claims, Class Actions, Class Notice, FLSA, Jury, Opt-in, Opt-out, Overtime, Preemption, Professional, Trial, Unfair Competition Law

Ninth Circuit Holds That Newspaper Reporters Not Exempt

New York, New York. Newsroom of the New York T...
Image via Wikipedia

On Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in “all respects” the trial court’s grant of partial summary judgment to plaintiffs, a judgment after jury and bench trials, and an award of attorney’s fees to plaintiffs.  Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc., Nos. 08-55483, 08-56740, — F.3d —-, 2010 WL 3733568 (9th Cir. Sept. 27, 2010).  Among other things, the Ninth Circuit held that plaintiff newspaper reporters were non-exempt.  (Thank you to Randy Renick for bringing this case to my attention.)

Background

Employees of Chinese Daily News, Inc. (“CDN”), a Chinese-language newspaper, filed suit against CDN on behalf of current, former, and future CDN employees based in CDN’s San Francisco and Monterey Park (Los Angeles), California locations.  Id. *1.  Plaintiffs claimed violations of the FLSA, California’s Labor Code, and California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, alleging that employees were made to work in excess of eight hours per day and forty hours per week. Id. Continue reading →

Tagged , , , , , , ,
Jan 09 2011
Leave a comment
Class Actions, First to File, FLSA, FLSA Collective Action, Transfer

Eastern District Denies “First to File” Transfer of FLSA Collective and Labor Code Class Action

My Reference Files
Image by Tim Morgan via Flickr

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied defendant employer’s motion to transfer pursuant to the “first-to file” rule.  Wilkie v. Gentiva Health Services, Inc., Civ. No. 10-1451 FCD/GGH, 2010 WL 3703060 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2010) (slip op.).  Plaintiff filed a putative nation-and California-wide class action/collective action against plaintiff’s former employer Gentiva for alleged violations of the Federal Labor and Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the California Labor Code § 201 et seq. for: (1) misclassification as exempt from overtime pay and failure to pay overtime; (2) willful failure to pay wages due within the time specified by the Code; (3) violation of California Wage Order No. 4 for knowingly and intentionally failing to provide timely, accurate, itemized wage statements including request for an injunction and damages; (4) failure to give proper rest and meal breaks; and (5) violation of California’s Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.  Id. *1

A prior FLSA collective action and New York and North Carolina state law class action against Gentiva was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, entitled Rindfleisch, et al. v. Gentiva Health Services, Inc., No. CV10-2111 (E.D.N.Y.) (“Rindfleisch”). Defendant moved to transfer plaintiff’s complaint under the “first-to-file rule,” on the ground plaintiff’s claims are the subject of the Rindfleisch action. Plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing the parties and claims are not substantially similar in the two actions and other equitable factors militate against transfer under the first-to-file rule.  Id. The court denied Gentiva’s motion.  Id. Continue reading →

Tagged , , , , , , ,
Jan 09 2011
Leave a comment
Attorneys' Fees, Bonuses, Class Actions, Collateral Estoppel/Res Judicata, Trial

Second District Reverses Class Action Judgment Relating to Bonuses Allegedly Due After Merger

Fiber Optic Candle
Image by Chris Tengi via Flickr

The Second District reversed a trial court’s judgment in favor of employees in a class action trial.  Pearline Zalewa v. Tempo Research Corporation, B210429, 2010 WL 3735240 (Cal. Ct. App. 2d Dist. Sept. 27, 2010).  Defendant  fiber-optic equipment manufacturer was sued in a class action by its former employees who claimed that the manufacturer breached an obligation to pay them annual bonuses, an obligation that allegedly continued for years after they were laid off from work during a business downturn.  Id. The court concluded that the employees were not entitled to any recovery: “All but two of the employees relinquished their right to sue when they were laid off, in return for compensation that exceeded their earned severance pay. In any event, there was no promise made to pay bonuses to the employees after they were laid off.”  Id.

The Trial Court’s Judgment

The trial court conducted a bench trial in January 2008, finding that plaintiffs were entitled to recover a direct bonus under theories of breach of contract, promissory estoppel, accounting, and unfair business practices. Id. The court deemed the bonus payments to be “wages” under the Labor Code. Id. And because the bonus payments are wages, plaintiffs were awarded prejudgment interest and attorney fees under the Labor Code. Id. The court enumerated the amount of the award for each employee, less offsets for monies already paid by defendants, plus interest. Id. The total amount of the award, including interest, was approximately $99,000, and plaintiffs’ counsel was awarded attorney fees of $881,715.  Id. Continue reading →

Tagged , , , , , , ,
Jan 09 2011
Leave a comment
Meal and Rest Breaks, Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication, Overtime

Second District Reverses Summary Judgment on All Wage and Hour Claims

GLENDALE, CA - JANUARY 30: A truck leaves the...
Image by Getty Images via @daylife

The Court of Appeal for the Second District reversed summary judgment on wage and hour claims in Porter v. Ralphs Grocery Company, No. B218220, 2010 WL 3704055 (Cal. Ct. App. 2d Dist. Sept. 23, 2010).  Plaintiff alleged that defendant required him to work overtime off the clock, and by doing this defendant both denied plaintiff proper wages and made it difficult for plaintiff to calculate the overtime pay due him.  Id. *8.  Plaintiff also alleged that defendant failed to afford meal periods of at least one-half hour in which he was relieved of all duties, and that he regularly worked without taking the 10 minute rest breaks due him.  Id. Plaintiff alleged violation of Labor Code sections 1174, 226.7, and 512. Id. He also alleged violation of Labor Code sections 201 and 203 for failure to pay all sums due plaintiff immediately upon termination of his employment.  Id. Additionally, he alleged defendant retaliated against him for his having requested that he not have to work off the books. Id.

The Court of Appeal held that “when an employee continues to work at the end of his shift even when not requested or required to do so, and the employer knows or has reason to know about such continuing work, then the time is considered working time and it is the duty of management to see that the post-shift work is not performed if it does not want the employee to work past his shift.” Id. *9 (citing Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal. 4th 575 (2000)). Continue reading →

Tagged , , , , , , ,
Jan 09 2011
Leave a comment
Arbitration, Class-wide Arbitration

Eastern District Finds Class-Wide Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable

Seal of the United States Supreme Court
Image via Wikipedia

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California rejected defendant’s argument that Stolt-Nielson preempted Gentry, and the court held that a class-wide arbitration agreement was unenforceable as against an unpaid wage and overtime plaintiff.  Mathias v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., Civ. No. S-10-1476 LKK/KJM, 2010 WL 3715059 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2010) (slip op.).

Background

Ryan Mathias (“Mathias” or “plaintiff”) was employed by Rent-A-Center, Inc. (“RAC” or “defendant”) as an Assistant Manager, a position that was classified as a non-exempt or hourly position. Id. *1. As a condition of employment, plaintiff executed an arbitration agreement (“Agreement”), which Agreement contained a class action waiver and excluded arbitration private attorney general actions.  Id. Plaintiff filed a class action alleging eight claims arising from his employment with defendant, including claims for unpaid wages and overtime, unpaid rest and meal period premiums, and penalties arising from non-compliant wage statements under the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code. Id. Continue reading →

Tagged , , , , , , ,
Jan 09 2011
Leave a comment
Bond

Southern District Requires Plaintiffs in CUTSA Case to Post $800,000 Bond for Fees and Costs Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1030

Qualcomm Clown
Image by scragz via Flickr

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California required plaintiffs in a UTSA case to post an $800,000 bond for fees and costs, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1030.  Gabriel Technologies Corporation v. Qualcomm Incorporated, No. 08 CV 1992 MMA (POR), Slip Copy, 2010 WL 3718848 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2010).

The action arose out of events related to technology licenses and related joint ventures between Plaintiffs and their predecessor in interest, and Defendants.  Id *1.  In the Fourth Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs assert claims for: (1) Breach of the Amended and Restated License Agreement; (2) Correction of Inventorship (pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 256); (3) Declaratory Judgment of Ownership Interest in the Patents (pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201); and (4) Misappropriation (pursuant to Cal. Uniform Trade Secrets Act). Id. *2. Defendants filed a motion for a cost bond under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1030. Id. The Court also has authority under Civil Local Rule 65.1.2(a) to require Plaintiffs to post a bond “where authorized by law and for good cause shown.” Continue reading →

Tagged , , , , , , ,
Jan 09 2011
Leave a comment
Customer Lists, Demurrer/Motion to Dismiss, Injunctive Relief, Preemption, Preliminary Injunction, Trade Secrets

Northern District Denies Preliminary Injunction Where Plaintiff’s Declaration Failed to Show Customer List Was the Result of Substantial Time, Expense and Effort on Part of Plaintiff

Cinderella's Step-Mother and Her Two Lovely Da...
Image by myoldpostcards via Flickr

The Northern District of California denied defendants’ motion to dismiss based on UTSA preemption and denied plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction.  Kovesdy v. Kovesdy, C 10-02012 SBA, 2010 WL 3619826 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2010) (slip op.). Plaintiff Eric Kovesdy (“Eric” or “Plaintiff”) sued his stepmother, Defendant Hedy Kovesdy (“Hedy”) for, inter alia, for misappropriation of trade secrets under California’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“UTSA”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 3426-3426.11, and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). Id. (1) Defendants moved to dismiss; and (2) Plaintiff moved for preliminary injunction.

Background

Peter Kovesdy (“Peter”) opened a professional tax practice known as Humex Income Tax (“Humex”).   Continue reading →

Tagged , , , , , , ,
Jan 09 2011
Leave a comment
Minimum Wage

Surprising Side Effect of the Minimum Wage: Finishing High School

This is a history of minimum wage increases un...
Image via Wikipedia

The National Bureau of Economic Research report suggests a surprising effect of the minimum wage: finishing high school.  As reported by Kevin Lewis of the Boston Globe:

By curtailing low-wage/low-skill jobs, the minimum wage motivates young people to stay in school and become skilled. This effect then generates what the author calls an “educational cascade” by setting an example for the upcoming class of students. He estimates that the average male born in 1951 gained 0.2 years — and the average male born in 1986 gained 0.7 years — of high school due to the cumulative effect of the minimum wage.

Sutch, R., “The Unexpected Long-Run Impact of the Minimum Wage: An Educational Cascade,” National Bureau of Economic Research (September 2010).

By CHARLES JUNG

Enhanced by Zemanta
Tagged , , , , , , ,
Jan 09 2011
Leave a comment
23(b)(3) Class, Claims, Class Actions, Contract, Paystub, Vacation, Wages

Class Certification Granted in Vacation, Uniform, Paycheck, Wage and Contract Class Action

New Orleans, LA, September 6, 2008 -- FEMA Com...
Image via Wikipedia

The Southern District of California granted class certification in a vacation, uniform, paycheck, wage and contract class action.  Lopez v. G.A.T. Airline Ground Support, Inc., No. 09cv2268-IEG(BGS), 2010 WL 3633177 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2010) (slip op.).

Background

Former employees of Defendant G.A.T. Airline Ground Support, Inc. (“GAT”) sued for systematic wage and hour violations in violation of federal and state law. Id. *1.  GAT provides services to airlines, including ground transportation, aircraft maintenance, and cargo operations management.  Id. The four named Plaintiffs are former ramp agents employed by GAT in California.  Id. Continue reading →

Tagged , , , , , , ,
← Older posts