Tag Archives: Government

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

Advertisements
Tagged , , , , , , ,

Third Circuit Affirms Award of Damages in Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Case and Denial of Recovery on Injunction Bond After Employee’s Partial Success on Appeal

Seal, United States Court of Appeals for the T...
Image via Wikipedia

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s award of damages against employees on a claim brought by their former employer for, inter alia, misappropriation of trade secrets.  Latuszewski v. Valic Financial Advisors, Inc., No. 08-1511, 2010 WL 3582434 (3rd Cir. Sept. 15, 2010).   Former employer, VALIC Financial Advisors, Inc., bought claims against former employees Gary Latuszewski and James Rogan alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of trade secrets, and tortious interference with contract. Id. *1. Employees appealed arguing that this award was in error and also that the District Court erred in declining to award them damages under VALIC’s injunction bond after this court vacated part of the District Court’s temporary injunction against them. Id. Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Labor Code Section 512 Does Not Apply to Public Employees

WI: Ron Keenan, AFSCME 104, DC 24, worksite le...
Image by aflcio via Flickr

The First District Court of Appeal held that Labor Code section 512 and IWC Wage Order No. 17 do not apply to public employees.  California Correctional Peace Officer’s Association, et al. v. State of California, No. A125679, 2010 WL 3248794 (Cal. Ct. App. 1st Dist. Aug. 18, 2010).  The California Correctional Peace Officers’ Association (CCPOA) filed a class action, contending that the State of California violated various Labor Code provisions, as well as wage orders promulgated by the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC), by failing to provide correctional officers with meal periods and by failing to pay for the missed wage periods. CCPOA argued that the Legislature intended that the State provide its correctional officers with meal periods as required by Labor Code section 512 and IWC Wage Order No. 17, and that the State must pay for missed meal periods as required by Labor Code section 226.7.  The court rejected this argument, holding that “the subject wage and hour statutes do not apply to public employees.”  Id. *1. Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Navy Wins MSJ in Reverse-FOIA Case with a Trade Secrets Act Cause of Action

MOBILE, AL - JULY 2:  In this photo provided b...
Image by Getty Images via @daylife

In a reverse-FOIA case, JCI Metal Products v. U.S. Dept. of the Navy, Slip Copy, 2010 WL 2925436 (S.D. Cal.  Jul 23, 2010) (NO. 09-CV-2139-IEG), Plaintiff JCI Metal Products (“JCI”) brought an action seeking to prevent disclosure of certain information relating to its past contract with Defendant United States Department of the Navy (“Navy”). Before the Court were Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. The court granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

JCI’s second cause of action alleged that disclosure by the Navy of JCI’s unit prices for each contract line item (“CLIN”) information at issue would violate and contravene the Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1905.

The Trade Secrets Act provides a criminal penalty for:

Whoever, being an officer or employee of the United States . . . publishes, divulges, discloses, or makes known in any manner or to any extent not authorized by law any information coming to him in the course of his employment or official duties . . . which information concerns or relates to the trade secrets, processes, operations, style of work, or apparatus, or to the identity, confidential statistical data, amount or source of any income, profits, losses, or expenditures of any person, firm, partnership, corporation, or association . . . .

The Court held that the Trade Secrets Act “cannot override the FOIA’s obligatory disclosure provisions.” Citing CNA Fin. Corp., 830 F.2d at 1141-42; Gen. Elec. Co. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 750 F.2d 1394, 1401-02 (7th Cir.1984) (“[T]he Trade Secrets Act has no independent force in cases where the Freedom of Information Act is involved….”).  The Court concluded that the information sought was not protected by Exemption 4 of the FOIA, which exempts from disclosure “trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential.”  Accordingly, “because the information in this case is not protected by Exemption 4, neither can it be protected by the Trade Secrets Act.”  Therefore, the Court granted the Navy’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the Trade Secrets Act cause of action.

By CHARLES H. JUNG

Enhanced by Zemanta
Tagged , , , , , , ,

Sixth District Reverses Grant of Summary Adjudication of UTSA Claim on Equitable Estoppel Grounds

Applied Materials
Image by gholzer via Flickr

In Insyst Ltd. v. Applied Materials, Inc., 2010 WL 2892712 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 22, 2010) (unpublished), the California Sixth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s grant of summary adjudication of plaintiff’s misappropriation of trade secrets cause of action. The trial court granted summary adjudication based on the lapse of the statute of limitations. The Court of Appeal reversed on equitable estoppel grounds. Defendant “effectively concedes that in its motion it presented no evidence of plaintiff’s conduct after December 2002 apart from the filing of the complaint on July 30, 2004. Instead, in its reply defendant simply challenged plaintiff to present evidence of its diligence, arguing that plaintiff made no showing of diligence. This is not how a party should be able to obtain a summary adjudication.”
By CHARLES H. JUNG

Enhanced by Zemanta
Tagged , , , , , , ,
Advertisements