What are covenants not to compete?

Useful Rulings on Covenants Not to Compete

Recent Rulings on Covenants Not to Compete

SER CARGO EXPRESS CORP. VS PAOLA PACHON, ET AL.

Further, Plaintiff believes and alleges Manuela and Zarat, as a result of their employment and affiliation with the Paramount Companies, knew about the Contract and its non-compete clause. Manuela and Zarat understood Plaintiff purchased all the goodwill and assets of the Paramount Companies from Paola. (Matamoros Decl., ¶ 4; Noriyelian Decl., ¶ 2) The Contract’s provisions—specifically, the non-compete clause—appear to comply with Business and Professions Code section 16601.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

TAYLOR JACKSON VS ANTHONY MISITANO, ET AL.

Instead, Plaintiff argues that the 2019 Arbitration Agreement is void for violations of Labor Code section 925 and Business and Professions Code section 16600; the 2018 Arbitration Agreement is not revived by the illegality of the 2019 Arbitration Agreement; the arbitration clause is unconscionable; and if either Arbitration Agreement is valid, Defendants waived arbitration.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

TAYLOR JACKSON VS ANTHONY MISITANO, ET AL.

Instead, Plaintiff argues that the 2019 Arbitration Agreement is void for violations of Labor Code section 925 and Business and Professions Code section 16600; the 2018 Arbitration Agreement is not revived by the illegality of the 2019 Arbitration Agreement; the arbitration clause is unconscionable; and if either Arbitration Agreement is valid, Defendants waived arbitration.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

HOWARD PELTA VS GENEX SERVICES, LLC, ET AL.

., breach of contract, breach of loyalty, and violation of a non-compete. Plaintiff also argues that the Revised DRP is substantively unconscionable because of its Pennsylvania choice of law provision. The original DRP states that the FAA applies to enforceability of the arbitration agreement and if it does not then Pennsylvania law applies. However, the Revised DRP states that if the FAA is inapplicable then “arbitration law in the sate where the employee works or last worked for the Company will apply.”

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ROHRBACK COSASCO SYSTEMS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS ROLAND ANDERSON

Business and Professions Code § 16600—cited by Defendant in the demurrer—does not affect limitations on an employee’s conduct or duties while employed. (Id.) Business and Professions Code section 16600 states: “Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.”

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MAXIM HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC VS. FROMAN

Instead, Cross-Complainants argue that Maxim violated Business & Professions Code section 16600. Therefore, the Flatley rule does not apply here.

  • Hearing

MAXIM HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC VS. FROMAN

Instead, Cross-Complainants argue that Maxim violated Business & Professions Code section 16600. Therefore, the Flatley rule does not apply here.

  • Hearing

BRADLEY MOLS VS. ANGELA TORRES

Although not appropriately set out in moving parties' notice of motion, the second ground moving parties advance for finding the first cause of action to be without merit is moving parties' contention that Business & Professions Code section 16600 invalidates restrictive covenants which prevent an employee from doing business with a former employer's clients.

  • Hearing

IN RE ALPHABET, INC. SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION

It consulted executive compensation and benefits attorneys at Cravath regarding the value of the non-compete conditions in Rubin’s and Singhal’s separation agreements. On December 9, 2019, the SLC informed counsel that it had determined that it was in the company’s and its stockholders’ best interests to attempt to resolve the claims at issue through a global mediation, and not to pursue the claims, which it determined did not amount to colorable claims that were in Alphabet’s best interests to pursue.

  • Hearing

MICHAEL KADENACY VS MICHAEL FRAWLEY, ET AL.

That non-compete provision is soon to expire, and when it does, Plaintiff intends to promote his availability and solicit his services to his many contacts in the digital media quality control industry.” (Id. at ¶ 12.) · At the time of this filing, Plaintiff and Irena are adversarial parties to a family-law proceeding entitled In re Marriage of Kadenacy, Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BD515490 (the ‘Family Law Proceeding’).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

PARAMOUNT EXCLUSIVE INSURANCE SERVICES, INC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS NEWFRONT INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Section 16600 expresses California's strong public policy of protecting the right of its citizens to pursue any lawful employment and enterprise of their choice. (Advanced Bionics Corp. v. Medtronic, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 697, 706 [128 Cal. Rptr. 2d 172, 59 P.3d 231]; Weber, Lipshie & Co. v. Christian (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 645, 659 [60 Cal. Rptr. 2d 677] [‘section 16600 was adopted for a public reason’].)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

TMTE INC. VS ALEXANDER SPELLANE, ET AL.

Issue 3: First Cause of Action: Breach of Contract Business and Professions Code section 16600 provides that “every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 16600.)

  • Hearing

PATEL VS. SIROTT

The arbitrators concluded that the non-compete clause of the CRTC Operating Agreement (Section 5.12) was valid and enforceable. The arbitrators held Dr. Patel and EBMOH liable to CRTC for breach of contract for establishing the CyberKnife Center within 10 miles of CRTC. The arbitrators also held Dr. Patel breached his fiduciary duty of loyalty to CRTC under Corp.

  • Hearing

ROUTE FOUR LLC VS. BURKHART

Route Four also alleges that after the sale, Burkhart, Rails and Canop began competing with Route Four’s business in violation of the non-compete agreement. Three days later, on 2/6/20, Burkart filed a breach of contract case, Case No. 30-2020-01130231, against Route Four LLC, Kenneth Alston and Justin Pierce (Route Four’s owners). Canop Holdings, Inc. was later added as a plaintiff.

  • Hearing

CHASE METALS INC VS MARK A BENAVIDES

Issue 3: First Cause of Action: Breach of Contract Business and Professions Code section 16600 provides that “every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 16600.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

LORI SAMMIS VS BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS, INC.

Mann also states that: (1) another business purpose for excluding trade secret and non-compete claims from the EDR Plan is based on the recognition that such claims often involve third parties who are not signatories and are not bound by the EDR Plan (Id. at ¶ 7); (2) if such claims were subject to the EDR Plan, Moving Defendant would be in the position of suing the competing non-signatory companies in court but arbitrating trade secret or non-compete claims against employees (Id.); (3) proceeding in two forums

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

DRAKE KENNEDY, ET AL. VS BRIAN KENNEDY, ET AL.

The bid required Drake and his family members to agree to non-compete agreements, which are prohibited by the Term Sheet. The bid also required that Drake release a portion of his claims against Brian, which Drake would never agree to. Drake Opp. at 6-7. The Receiver’s refusal to accept Brian’s bid is not grounds for removal. The Receiver disputes Brian’s allegations that he engaged in racial discrimination.

  • Hearing

KUMAR V. JADE GLOBAL, INC.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has required current and former employees to sign employment agreements materially identical to the ECIIAA and the prohibition of soliciting customers after termination is an unlawful contractual restriction in violation of Labor Code section 432.5 and Business and Professions Code section 16600. (Id., ¶¶ 40-44.)

  • Hearing

FLAHERTY VS. SEAMAN CORPORATION

Code §16600. Afterwards, the former employer filed an action in Minnesota and the employee and new employer sought and obtained a temporary restraining order in the California action seeking to prohibit the former employer from taking any further steps in the Minnesota action. Id. at 701-03.

  • Hearing

THOMAS KENSOK V. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, ET AL.

Business and Professions Code section 16600 voids contracts that restrain persons from working in lawful professions, but any “financial penalty” Petitioner may have suffered upon reentering the Deputy District Attorney, Advanced Level position does not amount to a “restraint” on his ability to work as a prosecutor. Breach of Contract.

  • Hearing

LEIF ROGERS VS LISA CASSILETH, ET AL.

The Amendments purported to (1) add a non-competition clause (hereinafter the “Non-Compete”) and (2) modify the definition of “Agreed Value” from a three times (3x) EBITDA-multiplier to a mere EBITDA multiplier of one (1x) (the “Amended Agreed Value”). (UMF 25.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ALI AKBAR SHAHIDI, AN INDIVIDUAL VS DALE JENNINGS, AN INDIVIDUAL

The Amendments purported to (1) add a non-competition clause (hereinafter the “Non-Compete”) and (2) modify the definition of “Agreed Value” from a three times (3x) EBITDA-multiplier to a mere EBITDA multiplier of one (1x) (the “Amended Agreed Value”). (UMF 25.)

  • Hearing

PROFIT RECOVERY PARTNERS LLC VS. HBR CONSULTING LLC

The Supreme Court rejected the contention that there could be “a narrow-restraint exception to section 16600.” Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP (2008) 44 Cal.4th 937, 950. Recently, the nonsolicitation of employee provision in an employee contract was determined to be void under section 16600.

  • Hearing

FINICAL, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS RICHARD COLE LYON, ET AL.

As the demurrer to the breach of contract cannot be sustained for the foregoing reasons, the Court need not address whether Business and Professions Code section 16600 bars Cross-Complainants’ contention that the use of any confidential information by Cross-Defendant in its profession, trade, or business as a matter of law constituted an actionable breach of contract.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

As the demurrer to the breach of contract cannot be sustained for the foregoing reasons, the Court need not address whether Business and Professions Code section 16600 bars Cross-Complainants’ contention that the use of any confidential information by Cross-Defendant in its profession, trade, or business as a matter of law constituted an actionable breach of contract.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 11     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.