The Northern District dismissed a California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA or CUTSA) cause of action in a software code distribution case for failure to adequately allege secrecy. Kema, Inc. v. Koperwhats, No. C-09-1587 MMC, 2010 WL 3464708 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2010) (slip op.). Continue reading
In a non-trade secrets intellectual property case, The Northern District of California noted, in dictum, that “trade secret law allows recovery of saved development costs.” Oracle Corp. v. SAP AG, No. C 07-1658 PJH, — F.Supp.2d —-, 2010 WL 3258603, *14 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2010). Continue reading
A Los Angeles Superior Court jury awarded plaintiff an aggregate $157,000 verdict in Hong vs. Life University, an employment and trade secrets case. 37 Trials Digest 13th 12, 2010 WL 3454121 (Verdict Date June 28, 2010).
Plaintiff allegedly entered into an employment contract with defendant university for a five-year term to begin October 1, 2006. Plaintiff alleged that defendants breached the agreement by firing him on June 15, 2007. Continue reading
Yesterday, the Second District issued an opinion addressing the validity of the Hotel Service Charge Reform Ordinance (Ordinance) enacted by the City of Los Angeles, which requires non-unionized hotels in the Century Corridor near Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) to pass along mandatory service charges to workers who render the services for which the charges have been collected. Garcia v. Four Points Sheraton LAX, et al., Nos. B210720, B210716, B210719, B210726, B210730, — Cal. Rptr. 3d —-, 2010 WL 3491954 (Cal. Ct. App. 2d Dist. Sept. 8, 2010). Continue reading
The Central District remanded a putative minimum wage and overtime class action suit in Munoz v. Central Parking Sys., Inc., No. CV 10-6172 PA (RCx), 2010 WL 3432239 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2010) (unpublished).
Plaintiff’s complaint attempted to avoid removal, stating “[i]t is believed that the total sum owed to the Class alleged herein is less than $5 million, based upon the anticipated size of the Class and the amount in controversy for each member of the Class.” Id. *1. Continue reading
The Northern District granted a motion for leave to conduct third-party discovery on various internet service providers to determine the identity of an anonymous sender of trade secret information. SolarBridge Technologies, Inc. v. Doe, No. C10-03769 LHK (HRL), 2010 WL 3419189 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2010) (slip op). Continue reading
A former employer was awarded $3,135 in compensatory damages after a Los Angeles Superior Court bench trial related to former sales employees’ alleged misappropriation of trade secrets . LifeSource Water Systems Inc. vs. Stansfield, GC041297, 36 Trials Digest 13th 12 (Judgment Date May 4, 2009). Plaintiff filed suit for breach of written contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition, and interference with prospective economic advantage. According to Trials Digest, the court issued a permanent injunction, ordered defendants to deliver all of plaintiff’s property in their possession, ordered Stansfield to pay $1,940 compensatory damages and ordered Kline to pay $1,195 compensatory damages. Continue reading
Plaintiff in a trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement case won a jury verdict for $11,909,797. I-Flow Corporation vs. Apex Medical Technologies Inc., No. 07CV01200(DMS), 36 Trials Digest 13th 16 (S.D. Cal. Verdict Date Oct. 28, 2009). As reported by Trials Digest, plaintiff’s award included $1,484,966 damages from defendant Apex to plaintiff for misappropriation of plaintiff’s trade secrets; and$1,484,966 damages from defendant McGlothlin to plaintiff for misappropriation of plaintiff’s trade secrets. Continue reading
The court in Adoma v. University of Phoenix, Inc., No. CIV. S-10-0059 LKK/GGH, 2010 WL 3431804 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2010 (slip op.) held that even where plaintiff’s proposed method of “reconstructing records of hours worked . . . will be imperfect”, plaintiffs may rely on “a few representative inquiries whose results will be extrapolated to the class.” Continue reading
The Third District in Miller v. Lifestyles Senior Housing Managers et al., No. C059843, 2010 WL 3398750 (Cal. Ct. App. 3d Dist. Aug. 31, 2010), affirmed the trial court’s judgment confirming an arbitrator’s decision denying statutorily mandated attorneys fees to the prevailing plaintiff. Id. *1. Continue reading
California Employment Lawyer 