Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
To prevail on a claim for misappropriation of a trade secret and to recover damages, Plaintiff must prove:
Diodes v. Franzen (1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 244, 250.
“‘A trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is used in one’s business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it. It may be a formula for a chemical compound, a process of manufacturing, treating or preserving materials, a pattern for a machine or other device, or a list of customers.’” Diodes, supra, 260 Cal.App.2d at 251 (citation omitted).
“It is critical to any (UTSA) cause of action—and any defense—that the information claimed to have been misappropriated be clearly identified. Accordingly, a California trade secrets plaintiff must, prior to commencing discovery, ‘identify the trade secret with reasonable particularity.’” Silvaco Data Systems v. Intel Corp. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 210, 221, disapproved on another ground. “[U]ntil the content and nature of the claimed secret is ascertained, it will likely be impossible to intelligibly analyze the remaining” elements that constitute the cause of action. Id. at 220.
The trade secret must be described “with sufficient particularity to separate it from matters of general knowledge in the trade or of special knowledge of those persons who are skilled in the trade, and to permit the defendant to ascertain at least the boundaries within which the secret lies.” Diodes, supra, 260 Cal.App.2d at 253; accord Brescia v. Angelin, 172 Cal.App.4th 133, 144 (noting that Code Civ. Proc., § 2019.210 was intended to codify Diodes); Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 826, 835; Altavion, Inc. v. Konica Minolta Sys. Lab. Inc. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 26, 43-44.
CUTSA preempts common law claims that are “based on the same nucleus of facts as the misappropriation of trade secrets claim for relief.” K.C. Multimedia, Inc. v. Bank of America Tech. & Oper., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 939, 958-959. Common law claims for conversion, interference with contract, unjust enrichment, negligence and “unfair competition” under Business and Professions Code § 17200 have thus been held preempted where based on the same nucleus of facts as the misappropriation of trade secrets claim. Id. (finding claim that defendants “engaged in intentional acts designed to induce a breach or disruption of plaintiff’s contractual relationship” by “helping” and “encouraging” him to misappropriate trade secrets and then luring him to become an employee was premised upon trade secrets claim and derived from “the same nucleus of facts” as the trade secrets claim, and was thus preempted); Silvaco Data Systems v. Intel Corp. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 210, 236 (disapproved on other grounds in Kwikset Corp. v. Super. Ct. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 310, 337).
However, the CUTSA does not preempt contract claims even if based on misappropriation of a trade secret. Angelica Textile Services, Inc. v. Park (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 495, 506; Civ. Code Sec. 3426.7(b)(1). Nor does it preempt non-contract claims that, although related to a trade secret misappropriation, are independent and based on facts distinct from those that support the misappropriation claim. Angelica Textile Services, Inc. v. Park, supra, 220 Cal.App.4th at 506.
The prevailing plaintiff in an action for the misappropriation of trade secrets may recover for the “actual loss caused by misappropriation,” and may also recover “for the unjust enrichment caused by misappropriation that is not taken into account in computing damages for actual loss.” Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 3426.3(a). “A defendant’s unjust enrichment is typically measured by the defendant’s profits flowing from the misappropriation,” not from those profits a defendant would have otherwise earned. Ajaxo Inc. v. E*Trade Fin. Corp. (2010) 187 Cal. App. 4th 1295, 1305; see also Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition Sec. 45 cmt. f (1995) (“The traditional form of restitutionary relief in an action for the appropriation of a trade secret is an accounting of the defendant’s profits on sales attributable to the use of the trade secret”). Consequently, “[w]here the plaintiff’s loss does not correlate directly with the misappropriator’s benefit,” the calculation of unjust enrichment damages “becomes more complex,” and “[t]here is no standard formula to measure it.” Ajaxo Inc., 187 Cal. App. 4th at 1305. “The royalty that the plaintiff and defendant would have agreed to for the use of the trade secret made by the defendant may be one measure of the approximate portion of the defendant’s profits attributable to the use.” Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition Sec. 45 cmt. f (1995).
As a matter of proof, “[t]he plaintiff has the burden of establishing the defendant’s sales,” whereas “the defendant has the burden of establishing any portion of the sales not attributable to the trade secret and any expenses to be deducted in determining net profits.” Id.
for breach of contract. 1 st cause of action for misappropriation of trade secret (violation of CUTSA) — OVERRULE Defendants argue Plaintiff is required to describe the trade secret with “reasonable particularity” to state a claim under CCP §2019.210.
EUGENE RAPAPORT, M.D. VS BORIS COSMETIC SURGERY CENTER, ET AL.
21SMCV00475
Sep 21, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Harman is demurring on the grounds that the intentional interference with contract, interference with prospective economic relations, unfair business practices, implied indemnity, injunctive relief and declaratory relief are preempted by the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act ("CUTSA"). CUTSA is the exclusive remedy for conduct falling within its purview and supersedes other civil remedies based upon misappropriation of trade secret. (Cal. Civil § 3426.7(a), (b).)
ELECINIC CORP VS. KSC INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED
37-2014-00037349-CU-BC-CTL
Apr 06, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Contract
Breach
The SACC alleges (1) Breach of Duty of Loyalty and Violation of Labor Code section 2863; (2) Misappropriation of Trade Secret – Civil Code section 3426; (3) Tortious Interference with Contract; and (4) Unfair Competition in Violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200. Presently before the Court are Plaintiffs’/Cross-Defendants’ demurrer to the SACC and motion to strike portions of the SACC. Timely opposition and reply papers have been filed.
AGUSTIN GONZALEZ, ET. AL VS. DENBESTE ENGINE CO.
TC028576
May 04, 2017
Steven D. Blades or Brian S. Currey
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
The 3rd and 4th causes of action are based on the same nucleus of facts as the 1st cause of action for misappropriation of trade secret. Therefore the claims are preempted by CUTSA. Motion to Strike Grant motion to strike punitive damages with leave to amend as to paragraph 14, and prayer no. 4 of page 6 of the complaint. The motion to strike is moot as to paragraphs 26, and 33, and prayer nos. 9 and 13 in page 6 of the complaint pursuant to the court order sustaining defendants' demurrer.
INGRAM VS CASA MARINA VILLAGE
56-2017-00496622-CU-IP-VTA
Aug 23, 2017
Ventura County, CA
The first issue reached by the Neothermia court was does CCP §2019(d) [now §2019.210] apply when there is no misappropriation of trade secret cause of action. "On its face, § 2019(d) is not limited to misappropriation claims pursuant to the UTSA. By its terms, § 2019(d) does not require that an identification of a trade secret be made in any action in which a claim for a violation of the UTSA is being asserted.
THE DINI GROUP LA JOLLA INC VS. CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS INC
37-2017-00021027-CU-BC-CTL
Apr 05, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Contract
Breach
Denbeste has failed to substantiate its Misappropriation of Trade Secret – Civil Code § 3426 claim with any evidence whatsoever. The Denbestes’ Declarations are vague and speculative. The Court grants Gonzalez’ motion for summary judgment. VI. Ruling The Court denies Denbeste’s motion for summary judgment. The Court grants summary adjudication as to the first cause of action for Violation of the WARN Act (Labor Code § 1400).
AGUSTIN GONZALEZ, ET. AL VS. DENBESTE ENGINE CO.
TC028576
Jan 25, 2018
Brian S. Currey or Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
The misappropriation of trade secret claim fails because the information alleged to constitute a "trade secret" does not meet the statutory requirements. Oxford's purported "trade secrets" are neither unique when comparable to ARM's. Further, the "trade secrets", including the rates paid by one agency or the schedules of advertising campaigns, are available to others. There is no "secret" at issue.
OXFORD ROAD INC VS AD RESULTS MEDIA LLC
37-2019-00019888-CU-CO-CTL
Jul 09, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Contract
Contract - Other
CUTSA also preempts claims based on the misappropriation of confidential information that is not a trade secret. (Silvaco Data Systems v. Intel Corp. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 210, 239, n.22; see also Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entertainment, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2011) 782 F.Supp.2d 911, 987.) The third and eighth causes of action are all based on the same nucleus of facts as the misappropriation of trade secret claim. (See Complaint, ¶¶ 5, 35, 36, 54-55, 81-82.)
INCIPIO, LLC VS. C2 WIRELESS AND ACCESSORIES LLC
30-2018-01008219-CU-BT-CXC
Dec 20, 2018
Orange County, CA
As such, the argument that CUTSA preempts the tort based causes of action is not subject to a waiver here. Preemption by CUTSA CUTSA is codified in Civil Code sections 3426 et seq. and governs misappropriation of trade secret claims. (K.C. Multimedia, Inc. v. Bank of America Technology & Operations, Inc., supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at p. 954.)
ROBERT HALF INTERNATIONAL INC. VS. SUNSHINE PENNINGTON
22CECG01726
Oct 04, 2023
Fresno County, CA
Facts pled in the 66th and 73rd paragraphs of the SAC establish that these causes of action are separate and distinct from misappropriation of trade secret claims. (Angelica Textile Services, Inc. v. Park (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 495, 506.) Defendants to file an Answer within 20 days. Plaintiff to give notice. Defendant’s sole argument for demurrer to the 3rd, 4th, and 7th COAs is that is that they are superseded by the CUTSA.
NGUYEN VS. LEE
30-2019-01069097
Mar 10, 2020
Orange County, CA
On April 23, 2018, Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint alleging causes of action for (1) misappropriation of trade secret, (2) breach of contract, (3) intentional interference with contractual relations, and (4) unfair competition. Defendant demurs to the first and third causes of action for uncertainty and failure to state sufficient facts. Since the filing of the Demurrer, Plaintiff has dismissed the third cause of action.
MANDUKA LLC VS CHRISTINA TERRAZAS ET AL
BC703216
Jul 18, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION – AIDING AND ABETTING MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRET CUTSA “preempts common law claims that are ‘based on the same nucleus of facts as the misappropriation of trade secrets claim for relief.’ [Citation.]” (K.C. Multimedia, Inc. v. Bank of America Tech. & Ops., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 939, 958.)
CREDIT CARD SERVICES INC VS JOE TEH CHUANG ET AL
BC487454
Nov 21, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION – AIDING AND ABETTING MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRET CUTSA “preempts common law claims that are ‘based on the same nucleus of facts as the misappropriation of trade secrets claim for relief.’ [Citation.]” (K.C. Multimedia, Inc. v. Bank of America Tech. & Ops., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 939, 958.)
CREDIT CARD SERVICES INC VS YOUNG SOO LEE ET AL
BC514977
Nov 21, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
The California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”) is codified at Civil Code § 3426 et seq.
THE PINZA GROUP VS. GOTTFRIED
MSC17-00056
Jul 17, 2017
Ed Weil
Contra Costa County, CA
Konica Minolta Systems Laboratory, Inc. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 26, 41–42 Generally, CUTSA pre-empts or displaces noncontract causes of action alleging misappropriation of trade secret, under section 3426.7, subd.
CALCHEF FOODS, LLC VS AMERICAN CUSTOM MEATS, LLC
STK-CV-UBC-2020-0004353
Mar 13, 2023
San Joaquin County, CA
The second cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets in violation of common law is based on the same nucleus of facts as the first cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets in violation of Civil Code Section 3426. Cross-Complaint, ¶¶ 24-28, 33-35, and 37. Demurrer is sustained with 10 days leave to amend. Case Management Conference is continued to March 16, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. in Department C32.
TIANO V. GREENTH, INC.
30-2019-01068733
Jan 27, 2020
Orange County, CA
Cross-Complainants maintain that “while there is a misappropriation of trade secret allegation included it is not the nexus of the claim and is merely incidental to the breach of fiduciary duty claim as it relates to his breach by self-dealing and starting a competing business.” ( Id. at p. 12:17-21, citing SACC, ¶ 32.)
KRISTOPHER FAGAN VS JUSTIN HILL, ET AL.
19STCV46987
Mar 22, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
Cross-Defendant argue that these allegations “form the same nucleus of facts for the Fourth Cause of Action for Misappropriation of Trade Secrets,” therefore they are preempted by the CUTSA. ( Id. at p. 14:10-16, citing FACC, ¶¶ 45-47.) Cross-Complainants argue that their breach of fiduciary claim is not preempted by CUTSA because “while there is a misappropriation of trade secret allegation included it is not the nexus of the claim and is merely incidental to the breach of fiduciary duty claim.”
KRISTOPHER FAGAN VS JUSTIN HILL, ET AL.
19STCV46987
Jan 12, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
Plaintiff seeks to strike the punitive damages prayer on the 3rd cause of action for Breach of the Duty of Loyalty and 5th cause of action for misappropriation of trade secret. Plaintiff has not alleged specific facts showing malice. Plaintiff may seek punitive damages for “oppression, fraud or malice” by the defendant. (CC § 3294(a).)
BLUE TIGER RECOVERY INC VS NEWELL HEARING RE: MOTION TO/FOR STRIKE ALLEGATIONS AND PRAYER FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES BY CLINTON NEWELL, CYNTHIA STAVA, SCION COUNSELING LLC
PSC2003989
Nov 23, 2020
Riverside County, CA
of trade secret.”
STONEBRIDGE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INCORPORATED VS MATTHEW W. MARKATOS, ET AL.
19STCV35782
Oct 30, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Case Number: 21STCV31033 Hearing Date: March 4, 2024 Dept: 68 Dept. 68 Date: 3-4-24 a/f 4-17-24 Case # 21STCV31033 Trial Date: 4-29-24 c/f 3-11-24 RELIEVED AS COUNSEL MOVING ATTORNEY: Larson LLP CLIENT: Plaintiff, T1 Payments, LLC RELIEF REQUESTED Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record SUMMARY OF ACTION On August 23, 2021, Plaintiff T1 Payments, LLC a Nevada Limited Liability Company, filed a complaint for Misappropriation of Trade Secret, Breach of Fiduciary
T1 PAYMENTS, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS LISA KAYE, ET AL.
21STCV31033
Mar 04, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
There however was no mention of Abacus' misappropriation of trade secret claim. The November 6, 2017 letter from Micah Bailey to Grant Teeple regarding general deficiencies in Abacus' complaint is attached as Exhibit "7" to NOL. 13. On November 14, 2017, Mr. Bailey sent my office a meet and confer letter relating to Abacus' conspiracy claims. Nothing in the letter addressed Abacus' misappropriation of trade secret claims it had brought against Baker.
ABACUS DATA SYSTEMS INC VS COSTIN BULISACHE
37-2017-00040330-CU-DF-CTL
Apr 19, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Defamation
Trade Secrets Act Preemption Cross-defendants argue cursorily that Wong’s second, third, and fifth causes of action (for breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, and unfair competition) are preempted by the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA), Civil Code §§ 3426 et seq. (Wong’s fourth cause of action is pleaded directly under CUTSA.) The relevant statute is Civil Code § 3426.7. It oddly recites only what is not preempted by CUTSA rather than speaking to what is preempted.
BRACHIUM, INC. VS. WONG
MSC19-00880
Oct 25, 2019
Contra Costa County, CA
Diodes was decided before California adopted the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA, Civil Code §3426, et seq.) in 1984. (See Brescia v. Angelin (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 133, 144.)
NEPTUNE FIRE PROTECTION, INC. VS. COOPER RIVER HOLDINGS, INC.
30-2017-00943061-CU-BC-CJC
Aug 10, 2018
Orange County, CA
Issue No. 1: The First Cause of Action for Misappropriation of Trade Secret Fails because Maxim Cannot meet the elements of a Trade Secret, Misappropriation, or Damages.
MAXIM HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC V FROMAN
30-2019-01050540
Jul 01, 2021
Orange County, CA
of trade secret.”
DOLLAR SHAVE CLUB INC ET AL VS EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE CO ET
BC678761
Jul 28, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Analysis Defendants Born and PFM demur to the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and ninth causes of action for failure to state a cause of action because they contend those claims are preempted by the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Civil Code §§ 3426-3426.11 ("CUTSA"). (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e).) Defendants also make special demurrers to the sixth and seventh causes of action for uncertainty. (Code Civ.
MSC21-01175
Sep 15, 2021
Contra Costa County, CA
First Cause of Action: Misappropriation of Trade Secrets under Civil Code § 3426 and The Uniform Trade Secret Act To prevail on a claim for misappropriation of a trade secret and to recover damages, Plaintiff must prove: (1) the existence of a trade secret; (2) that the plaintiff made reasonable efforts to protect the secrecy of the trade secret; (3) defendant's misappropriation of the trade secret; (4) the date on which the misappropriation began or that it began within the period of the statute of limitations
CONTINENTAL VITAMIN COMPANY, INC. VS. ALI ALAVI
VC066356
Sep 27, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
California Uniform Trade Secrets Act Defendant argues all of Plaintiffs claims in this action are superseded by the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA) as codified at Civil Code §§ 3426-3426.11. CUTSA preempts all common law claims for misappropriation of trade secrets as well as common law claims which are based on the same nucleus of facts as the misappropriation of trade secrets claim for relief. ( K.C. Multimedia, Inc. v. Bank of America Tech. & Operations, Inc.
N.R. WINDOWS, INC. VS JACQUES HOUBEN
22SMCV02941
Jun 28, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Those claims are based on the same nucleus of facts that underpin the statutory misappropriation of trade secret cause of action. Plaintiff's reference to non-trade-secret-proprietary-confidential information does not save the causes of action. California does not recognize a property right in "confidential" or "proprietary" information that does not meet the statutory definition of a trade secret. See Silvaco Data Sys. v.
DRIP DROP INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION VS. SOS HYDRATION INC., ET AL
CGC13533908
Apr 04, 2014
San Francisco County, CA
Preemption Defendants demur to the first, second, third and fifth causes of action on the basis that the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”) preempts causes of action based on the misappropriation of confidential, trade secret information. CUTSA, or Civil Code sections 3426 through 3426.11, “provides the exclusive civil remedy for conduct falling within its terms, so as to supersede other civil remedies ‘based upon misappropriation of trade secret.’” (Silvaco Data Systems v.
KONDA V. MARKOVIC, ET AL.
19CV345846
Mar 05, 2020
Santa Clara County, CA
Misappropriation of Trade Secret 11. Common Law Misappropriation On 5/27/16, Chen filed her cross-complaint against Dennis Yang aka Chenglu Yang (“Yang”) and ROES 1-10 for Equitable Indemnity. The Final Status Conference is set for 4/10/17. A jury trial is set for 4/18/17.
UHRLAMPS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION VS GLORIA CHEN
KC068275
Oct 20, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRET The demurrer to the First Cause of Action for misappropriation of trade secret is OVERRULED.
CI QUERCUS CORPORATION INC. A DELAWARE CORPORATIO VS WOOLNER
RG21104479
Jan 12, 2022
Alameda County, CA
Second & Third Cause of Action for Misappropriation of Trade Secret: Plaintiff has not established the threshold issue of whether there was a trade secret. Plaintiff has not clearly shown that there was improper use of a trade secret. Fourth Cause of Action for Breach of Duty of Loyalty: In his last few days of employment with Plaintiff, Christopher Calderon may have breached his duty of loyalty. Since he is no longer Plaintiff’s employee, there cannot be any further breach of the duty of loyalty.
NATIONS DIRECT MORTGAGE LLC VS ROYAL PACIFIC FUNDING CORPORAITON
30-2017-00900858-CU-BC-CJC
Apr 01, 2017
Orange County, CA
Plaintiff opposes the demurrer only as to the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and ninth causes of action. 1 CUTSA Preemption Generally Under the CUTSA (Civil Code §§3426-3426.11), misappropriation means improper acquisition, or non-consensual disclosure or use of another’s trade secret. (Civ. Code, §3426.1(b).) The CUTSA “has been characterized as having a ‘comprehensive structure and breadth.’ ” (K.C. Multimedia, Inc. v.
D SOFTWARE, INC. V. FRANCIS ADANZA, ET AL.
17CV316019
Apr 10, 2018
Santa Clara County, CA
procedural history Plaintiff filed the Complaint on October 16, 2015, alleging four causes of action: Breach of Fiduciary Duty Defamation Accounting Involuntary Dissolution Defendant and Daily Does, LLC filed the Cross-Complaint on January 22, 2016, alleging five causes of action: Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations Breach of Contract Misappropriation of Trade Secret Breach of Fiduciary Duty Accounting Defendant Ryan Alberts filed the present Motion to Compel Responses from Plaintiff
DANIEL ANDRADE VS RYAN ALBERTS ET AL
BC598058
Jun 17, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
The complaint itself only provides conclusions regarding trade secrets throughout the first nine causes of action, with the subject secret finally defined in the tenth cause of action for misappropriation of trade secret based on a proprietary list of vendors, suppliers, and customers. [ ¶ ] Monocents proprietary list of vendors, suppliers, and customers was (was and continued to be) a trade secret at the time of Defendants misappropriation.
MONOCENT INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS MINA KATEB, AN INDIVIDUAL
22CHCV00236
Oct 13, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Tenth Cause of Action for Misappropriation of Trade Secret 8.
UHRLAMPS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION VS GLORIA CHEN
KC068275
Aug 29, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendants demur to the second cause of action for misappropriation of trade secret on the ground the claim lacks the specificity and particularity that California’s pleading standards require. Defendants contend that the California Uniform Trade Secret Act requires that the information claimed to have been misappropriated clearly be clearly identified and cites to C.C.P. section 2019.210 as legal authority.
ICONIC ENGINE INC. VS. AIREY
30-2019-01116891
Jul 30, 2020
Orange County, CA
FACTUAL / PROCEDURAL CONTEXT This is an action alleging misappropriation of trade secret under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Civ. Code, §3426 et seq.). Plaintiff is a distributor of sanitary and related supplies and equipment to the commercial, industrial and institutional markets throughout California. The moving Defendants are its competitors.
MGF & SONS INC VS INTEGRITY MARKETING GROUP
RIC1904822
Apr 22, 2021
Riverside County, CA
Accordingly, FICI and FGI satisfy their initial burden as moving parties of demonstrating that the third cause of action is based on an alleged misappropriation of trade secret and is not based on facts independent of such misappropriation, and therefore is barred by UTSA preemption. (See Angelica Textile Services, Inc. v. Park (2013) 220 Cal. App. 4th 495, 506.)
FRANKIE MARC ANTHONY VS. NANCY CANON
56-2013-00435072-CU-OE-VTA
Mar 12, 2015
Ventura County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
Code § 3426.6 (three years for misappropriation of trade secret); CCP § 338(c)(1) (three years for conversion); CCP § 339 (two years for an action upon a contract not founded upon a written instrument (unjust enrichment and quantum meruit)); CCP § 338(d) (three years for fraud); Snyder v. California Ins.
WALTER LANCASTER VS BEATS ELECTRONICS LLC ET AL
BC687998
Aug 01, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
procedural history Plaintiff filed the Complaint on October 16, 2015, alleging four causes of action: Breach of Fiduciary Duty Defamation Accounting Involuntary Dissolution Defendant and Daily Does, LLC filed the Cross-Complaint on January 22, 2016, alleging five causes of action: Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations Breach of Contract Misappropriation of Trade Secret Breach of Fiduciary Duty Accounting Defendant Ryan Alberts filed the present Motion to Compel Responses from Plaintiff
DANIEL ANDRADE VS RYAN ALBERTS ET AL
BC598058
Jun 10, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
As an initial matter, the motion includes a cross-complaint as part of the motion, in which Defendants purport to assert claims against Kutler for misappropriation of Trade Secret, Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage, Breach of Contract/Specific Performance and Conversion. This is not a proper Cross-Complaint and the Court therefore declines to consider it.
KUTLER V. TEN PHARMACY, INC.
30-2020-01148496
Feb 08, 2021
Orange County, CA
Defendants contend the 4th cause of action is preempted by the CUTSA, which preempts common law claims that are based on the same nucleus of facts as the misappropriation of trade secret claim. (See K.C. Multimedia, Inc. v. Bank of Am. Tech. & Operations, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 939, 958.) In opposition, Plaintiff contends that the 4th cause of action is not based entirely on the misappropriation of trade secrets claim.
UBF GROUP VS JANET SHANG
KC068149
Sep 21, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS, CIVIL CODE § 3426 ET SEQ. 6. SERVICES RENDERED - QUANTUM MERUIT.
ALEXANDER GHATAN, ET AL. VS PEJMAN ELI SHIRAZY, ET AL.
21STCV15670
Sep 13, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Third Cause of Action: Misappropriation of Trade Secrets The California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA) is codified in Civil Code §§ 3426 through 3426.11 and occupies common law trade secret misappropriation claims. (See K.C. Multimedia, Inc. v. Bank of America Technology & Operations, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 939, 954.)
CENTURY ROOTER AND JETTING SERVICE INC., ET AL. VS DOUGLAS KNIGHT, ET AL.
22STCV33976
Feb 22, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The FAC alleges (1) fraud and concealment; (2) breach of fiduciary duty; (3) aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty; (4) conversion; (5) misappropriation of trade secret; (6) trademark infringement; (7) unfair competition – passing off; (8) constructive trust; (9) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (10) accounting. On September 29, 2020, Defendants filed a demurrer.
TIMOTHY FRANK VS WILLIAM MAGNUSSEN, ET AL.
20STCV19039
Feb 03, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
INTEREST COMPUTATIONS (CRC 3.1800(a)(3)) [X] ATTORNEY FEE DECLARATION -- Request according to Local Rule 3.214 or reason provided why greater fees should be allowed (CRC 3.1800(b)) [ ] Request for atty fees allowed by statute or agreement of parties (CRC 3.1800(a)(9)): Permitted by Statute (California Civil Code §3426.4 authorizes the Court to award attorney fees and costs to the prevailing party on a claim for Misappropriation of Trade Secret.)
ROMA COSTUMES INC VS ROBERT EMMERMAN
BC711470
Aug 27, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
DEMURRER TO THE FAC Apple demurs to the FAC arguing that: the FAC is untimely since Envirodigm’s causes of action accrued in September 2016 when the iPhone 7 was publicly released; the unjust enrichment, unfair business practices and fraud causes of action are preempted by CUTSA; the fraud cause of action is not pled with sufficient particularity; the misappropriation of trade secret cause of action is too vague; the breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of fair dealing causes of action lack
ENVIRODIGM, INC. V. APPLE, INC.
20CV373138
May 06, 2021
Santa Clara County, CA
Botticelli's motion as to this cause of action is premised on the court adjudicating the CUTSA cause of action in Botticelli's favor. For the reasons set forth above, the court finds triable issues of material fact as to the misappropriation of trade secret cause of action and the remedies available thereunder. In reply Botticelli raises procedural issues with respect to Plaintiff's response to SSUMF 5, 16, 39, 40.
PACIFIC MARITIME FREIGHT INC VS. RALPH BOTTICELLI
37-2017-00021026-CU-BT-CTL
Feb 28, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
On December 22, 2017, plaintiff filed a complaint and on February 5, 2018, the operative first amended complaint for (1) civil conspiracy, (2) intentional misrepresentation, (3) misappropriation of trade secret, (4) fraud deceit, (5) fraudulent concealment, (6) conversion, (7) unjust enrichment, (8) quantum meruit, (9) negligent misrepresentations, and (10) declaratory relief. On March 19, 2018, Beats and Apple (collectively, Beats) filed this unopposed anti-SLAPP motion.
WALTER LANCASTER VS BEATS ELECTRONICS LLC ET AL
BC687998
Apr 25, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
These allegations are then incorporated by reference into the first cause of action for misappropriation of trade secret. See ¶ 28. As for the first cause of action, it states at ¶ 32: “CargoBarn is informed and believes and based thereon, alleges that Defendants have actually misappropriated and threaten to misappropriate CargoBarn’s trade secrets to promote a competing business.”
CARGOBARN V. FAST FREIGHT FORWARD ET AL.
16CECG03544
May 03, 2017
Fresno County, CA
While some of the information allegedly diverted by defendants may represent trade secrets subject to CUTSA, alleged diversion of business opportunities and other employees to a competitor represents a broader class of wrongs not completely encompassed within CUTSA’s ambit. CUTSA, Civil Code §§ 3426 – 3426.11 provides a remedy where trade secrets are improperly accessed by, transmitted to or obtained by one not legally entitled to knowledge of them.
USI INSURANCE SERVICES LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS ANGELO GIANNINI ET AL.
STK-CV-UOE-2023-0002120
Jan 10, 2024
San Joaquin County, CA
Defendants demur to all three causes of action arguing each fails because (1) the Letter of Intent ("LOI") alleged in the FAC was non-binding and expired on October 7, 2015, rendering Defendant Chawla's purchase of the property lawful, and (2) the interference claims fail because the requisite wrongful conduct independent of the interference alleged in the FAC – breach of fiduciary duty and misappropriation of trade secret – fails because Chawla was no longer employed by Plaintiffs at the time of the purchase
PACIFICA COMPANIES LLC VS CHAWLA
37-2015-00040347-CU-CO-CTL
Nov 03, 2016
San Diego County, CA
Contract
Contract - Other
Defendants demur to all three causes of action arguing each fails because (1) the Letter of Intent ("LOI") alleged in the FAC was non-binding and expired on October 7, 2015, rendering Defendant Chawla's purchase of the property lawful, and (2) the interference claims fail because the requisite wrongful conduct independent of the interference alleged in the FAC – breach of fiduciary duty and misappropriation of trade secret – fails because Chawla was no longer employed by Plaintiffs at the time of the purchase
PACIFICA COMPANIES LLC VS CHAWLA
37-2015-00040347-CU-CO-CTL
Dec 08, 2016
San Diego County, CA
Contract
Contract - Other
California’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”) is codified in Civil Code sections 3426 through 3426.11.
CELL-CRETE CORPORATION VS. SCOTT TAYLOR
EC064101
May 26, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
. § 1836 and under California state law pursuant to California Civil Code § 3426. The elements of a claim for trade secret misappropriation are substantially similar under both laws and, therefore, the claims can be analyzed together. ( InteliClear, LLC v. Etc Global Holdings, Inc. (9th Cir. 2020) 978 F.3d 653; Wisk Aero LLC v. Archer Aviation Inc. (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2021) 2021 WL 8820180, at *8 [noting the elements of 18 U.S.C. § 1836 et seq. and Cal. Civ.
DAVID THOMSON VS VERSES TECHNOLOGIES USA, INC., ET AL.
22STCV22678
Feb 07, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Trans Global Equities (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1327, 1345 fn. 22 [common law governs trade secret misappropriation claims before 1/1/85, CUTSA governs claims thereafter.) However, these arguments fail. In Opposition, Plaintiff admits that the first cause of action does not cite CUTSA, but argues correctly that the claim does request attorney’s fees under CUTSA (CC 3426.4).
CHUKRAN MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC VS. MOXY SOLUTIONS, LLC
30-2017-00947962-CU-IP-CJC
Apr 11, 2018
Orange County, CA
THEREFORE, the demurrer to the causes of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, RICO, conspiracy, misappropriation of trade secret, unjust enrichment, and violation of Bus. & Prof. §17200 is SUSTAINTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff shall file and serve its First Amended Complaint no later than August 2, 2019.
TRYP TECHNOLOGIES INC VS BRATHWAITE
37-2019-00018278-CU-CO-CTL
Jul 18, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Contract
Contract - Other
The demurrer to the 2nd cause of action for misappropriation of trade secret is SUSTAINED, without leave to amend.
TAKEYA USA CORPORATION VS. SCHMIDT
30-2017-00919274-CU-BT-CJC
Nov 01, 2018
Orange County, CA
The provisions of CUTSA set forth the definition of “misappropriation” and “trade secret” and provide injunctive relief for actual or threatened misappropriation, damages, attorney fees, methods for preserving the secrecy of trade secrets, the limitations period, the effect of CUTSA on other statutes or remedies, statutory construction, severability, the application of CUTSA to acts occurring prior to the statutory date, and the application of official proceedings privilege to disclosure of trade secret information
CELL-CRETE CORPORATION VS. SCOTT TAYLOR
EC064101
Sep 08, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendants seek to strike allegations regarding non-trade secret confidential Information from the CUTSA claim, but fail to provide any authority that would require these allegations to be stricken. Although defendants may be correct that plaintiffs' common law claims may be ultimately displaced by the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act in 1984, (Civ.Code, § 3426 et .17 seq.) ("CUTSA"), the court is unwilling to dispose of allegations based upon the defendants' contractual terms using a motion to strike.
MISSION HEALTHCARE SERVICES INC VS BRIDGE HOME HEALTH & HOSPICE
37-2016-00044574-CU-BT-CTL
Mar 07, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
The fifth cause of action for unfair competition alleges that the unfair and unlawful business practice was defendant having “violat[ed] and continu[ing] to intentionally violate provisions of Civil Code section 3426 et seq. [CUTSA], by intentionally misappropriating Plaintiff’s trade secrets.” (Id. at ¶ 99.)
JAMES PARKER INSURANCE ASSOCIATES VS. LUCIA CHAVEZ
22CECG01389
Apr 19, 2023
Fresno County, CA
Plaintiffs seek issuance of a preliminary injunction based on their causes of action misappropriation of trade secret and unfair competition.
JACK ESKENAZI, ET AL. VS MIKE MORAN, ET AL.
21SMCV01031
Jan 31, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The operative pleading does not include a cause of action for misappropriation of trade secret under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The Requests for Admissions do not appear to relate to a specific trade secret, but requires merely an admission or denial of the removal of confidential materials from plaintiff’s premises.
BLT COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS JULIANNE LAMARCHE, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.
19GDCV00245
Jun 28, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
This cause of action is preempted by CUTSA, as the claim is based on the same nucleus of facts as the misappropriation of confidential information. (Della Penna v. Toyota Motor Sales (1995) 11 Cal.4th 376, 381, 391-393.) Sixth Cause of Action (Intentional Misrepresentation). This claim is not preempted by CUTSA to the extent it pleads wrongdoing independent of the alleged misappropriation.
VIZION HEALTH LLC VS. APCO CAPITAL, LLC
30-2016-00869207-CU-BC-CJC
Apr 02, 2018
Orange County, CA
Issue No. 3: New Westerns Sixth Cause of Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty Is Preempted by the CUTSA and Otherwise Deficient; a. Specifically, the claim is deficient because it is based on misappropriation of confidential information and trade secrets (both of which are preempted under the CUTSA) and because it is based on the same false allegations as the Second Cause of Action for Breach of Contract; 4.
MATTHEW MILLER, ET AL. VS UNITED INVESTEXUSA 7 INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
20STCV22215
Feb 23, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Whether a section 502 claim is pre-empted by CUTSA is an open question. But if the stated statutory purpose of CUTSA is to pre-empt all non-contractual claims (including such statutory claims as a violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200) and matters embraced within the alleged misappropriation of trade secrets (see Civ. Code, § 3426.7), then the claim alleged here would appear to be pre-empted as a matter of law.
WFG NATIONAL TITLE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA V. FIDELITY TICOR INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.
30-2018-00972543-CU-MC-CJC
Jan 17, 2019
Orange County, CA
PAMC Defendants argue Plaintiffs cause of action for misuse and misappropriation of trade secrets and confidential information is presumptively asserted under common law rather than CUTSA and is therefore wholly superseded by CUTSA because CUTSA occupies the field of common law claims based on the misappropriation of a trade secret. ( Mattel , 782 F.Supp.2d at pg. 985, quoting K.C. Multimedia , 171 Cal.App.4th at pg. 954.)
PIPER CARE MANAGEMENT ET AL VS PACIFIC ALLIANCE MEDICAL CENT
BC681033
Oct 28, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Multimedia, Inc., supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at p. 954 [CUTSA preempts "common law trade misappropriation claims"]; Civ. Code, § 3426.7, subd. (a) [CUTSA does not preempt "other civil remedies that are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret" or "criminal remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret"].)
BUILDERS DIRECT SUPPLY VS PROPERTY CELLARS LLC
37-2021-00013180-CU-BT-CTL
Jun 09, 2023
San Diego County, CA
Defendants demur to the second and third COAs (intentional and negligent interference with existing and prospective relationship) on the grounds that they are preempted by the California Uniform Trade Secret Act (“CUTSA”).
IDAMED, INC VS. TRUONG
30-2017-00951983-CU-BT-CJC
Apr 04, 2018
Orange County, CA
THE CUTSA Preemption CUTSA preempts common law claims that are “based on the same nucleus of facts as the misappropriation of trade secrets claim for relief.” (K.C. Multimedia, Inc. v. Bank of America Technology & Operations, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 939, 958-959.)
ENABLE-IT V. PROSCEND COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ET AL.
30-2017-00911308-CU-BT-CJC
Sep 01, 2017
Orange County, CA
Thus, eliminating the misappropriation of trade secret claims from the SAC does not necessarily imply that the limitation of section 2019.210 does not apply to the remaining causes of action. With respect to the second issue, “discovery relating to the trade secret” may or may not overlap with jurisdictional discovery. “The purpose of section 2019.210 is as follows: ‘First, it promotes well-investigated claims and dissuades the filing of meritless trade secret complaints.
BUTLER AMERICA LLC VS UCOMMG LLC ET AL
20CV03877
Dec 03, 2021
Santa Barbara County, CA
Whether Causes of Action 2-4 are "Subsumed" and Preempted By CUTSA The CUTSA "does not supersede any statute relating to misappropriation of a trade secret, or any statute otherwise regulating trade secrets." Civ. Code 3426.7(a).
T&S THERAPY CENTRE INTERNATIONAL LLC VS PHILIP 'SONNIE' BOCALA [IMAGED]
37-2018-00010761-CU-AT-CTL
Jul 18, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Chae, and three (3) causes of action for trade secret claims (misappropriation of trade secret, interference with contractual relations and injunctive relief) against former employees (Lyoo, Jihyun Seo and Daeyoung Kim), Salt International, G. Chae, S. Chae and One Road USA, Inc. (Id.) The Salt Cross-Defendants cite no authority awarding sanctions in a situation remotely resembling the instant one.
SALT INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD. VS SKY EXPRESS WORLD COURIER, INC., ET AL.
21STCV27914
Oct 17, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendants’ sole argument as to this cause of action is that it is preempted by the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”). However, the Complaint alleges facts other than trade secret misappropriation that would support a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 26, 27, 30.) As to the 3rd COA (Breach of Confidence), the Demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend. As alleged, this cause of action is preempted by CUTSA.
JD PROPERTY VS. AGUILA
30-2018-01029785-CU-FR-CJC
Mar 12, 2019
Orange County, CA
In sum, WackPro’s interference with contract claim may or may not be based on the same nucleus of facts as WackPro’s misappropriation of trade secret claim. This determination will turn on the evidentiary facts. For purposes of demurrer, however, the court cannot conclude one way or the other. Consequently, Savi’s demurrer to the fourth cause of action in WackPro’s SAXC on the ground that the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action [Code Civ. Proc., §430.10, subd.
SAVI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. V. WACKPRO, INC., ET AL.
2014-1-CV-268149
Sep 20, 2018
Presiding
Santa Clara County, CA
CUTSA Preemption The California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”) has been held to preempt common law claims for misappropriation of trade secrets. Rutter, Empl. Litig. §14:81-81.5, citing Civ. Code §§ 3426–3426.10; Cacique, Inc. v. Robert Reiser & Co., Inc. (9th Cir. 1999) 169 F.3d 619, 624 (applying Calif. law); Accuimage Diagnostics Corp. v. Terarecon, Inc. (ND CA 2003) 260 F. Supp. 2d 941, 953–54 (applying Calif. law).
BROWN VS. CONFIE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, INC.
30-2017-00940904-CU-WT-CJC
May 21, 2018
Orange County, CA
California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”) Preemption Defendants argue that the third through sixth causes of action are preempted by CUTSA. CUTSA preempts common law claims that are “based on the same nucleus of facts as the misappropriation of trade secrets claim for relief.” (K.C. Multimedia, Inc. v. Bank of America Technology & Operations, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 939, 958-959.)
SMILE BRANDS INC. V. JUAREZ, ET AL.
30-2018-00996057-CU-BC-CJC
Feb 08, 2019
Orange County, CA
As to the non-CUTSA claims, CUTSA does not displace noncontract claims that are independent and premised on facts separate from facts supporting a trade secret misappropriation claim, although related to a misappropriation. (Angelica Textile Services, Inc. v. Park (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 495, 506 [Angelica].)
MILANESIO FARMS, INC. V. SANTOS, ET AL
VCU 270179
Apr 30, 2018
Tulare County, CA
Accordingly, the demurrer to the sixth cause of action on the basis of CUTSA preemption, is sustained with 15 days leave to amend. Violation of CUTSA (First Cause of Action) In the first cause of action, Plaintiff alleged a violation of CUTSA.
SMILE BRANDS INC. V. JUAREZ, ET AL.
30-2018-00996057-CU-BC-CJC
Oct 19, 2018
Orange County, CA
The first seems to rest on the premise, echoed in the judicial estoppel argument rejected above, that by asserting the substantive insufficiency of the CUTSA cause of action, Intel necessarily implied that CUTSA does not “apply” to the case. If CUTSA does not “apply,” proceeds the argument, it cannot supersede other theories of relief. By this logic, no cause of action can ever be barred by statutory supersession unless the plaintiff has a viable claim under the superseding statute.
THE R&D CREDIT COMPANY LLC VS CHRISTOPHER LACHANCE
BC654157
Jun 13, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Even though the first, third and fourth causes of action include allegations supporting a claim for trade secret misappropriation which claims have been displaced by the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA) there are also factual allegations that are not displaced by the CUTSA. "Moreover, the UTSA does not displace noncontract claims that, although related to a trade secret misappropriation, are independent and based on facts distinct from the facts that support the misappropriation claim."
TIM DOOLEY VS. TRACY SEVERT
56-2014-00450960-CU-BT-VTA
Aug 05, 2014
Ventura County, CA
The complaint, filed on 3/4/16 against Defendants Chen, Chang, Ideoparts and DOES 1-50, asserts causes of action for: Breach of Contract (against Chen only) Breach of Fiduciary Duty (against Chen only) Breach of Duty of Loyalty (against Chen only) Fraud/Misrepresentation/ Failure to Disclose Unjust Enrichment Unfair Competition Tortious Interference Usurpation of Corporate Opportunity Constructive Fraud Misappropriation of Trade Secret Common Law Misappropriation On 10/20/16, Chen filed her First
UHRLAMPS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION VS GLORIA CHEN
KC068275
Feb 16, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
On August 10, 2017, plaintiff filed the operative first amended complaint for the same 11 causes of action, relabeling the second as civil conspiracy and fourth as misappropriation of trade secret. On October 16, 2017, the Court sustained without leave defendants’ demurrer to the ninth cause of action and overruled the balance. On November 15, 2017, defendants filed an answer, admitting and denying certain allegations, and asserting 18 purported affirmative defenses.
PS ADVANCED ENGINEERING VS SKINCLINICAL TECHNOLOGIES LLC ET
BC659295
Jan 17, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Misappropriation of trade secret information constitutes an exception to section 16600. (ReadyLink Healthcare v. Cotton (2005) 126 CA4th 1006, 1021-1022.) (2). The 2016 separation letter is not an agreement because it is not a contract issue. (Civ. Code 1549.) To the extent the letter is or is not a contract is not a justification to strike and P argues that it is evidence that D had knowledge of the trade secrets and his contractual obligations. (3). Expert fees and atty fees issue. Civ Code § 3426.4.
O CONNOR & SONS INC VS HORNE
56-2016-00484117-CU-BT-VTA
Apr 07, 2017
Ventura County, CA
But more importantly, with trade secret claims in particular, courts have held that the plaintiff may not plead common law causes of action alternatively to a CUTSA misappropriation claim; the CUTSA displaces, or preempts, these causes of action.
SUBURBAN PROPANE, L.P. VS. JOHN DIPASQUALE
20CECG02259
Aug 12, 2021
Fresno County, CA
As such, the CUTSA displaces claims based on the same nucleus of facts as trade secret misappropriation. (See Silvaco Data Systems v. Intel Corp. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 210, 232; K.C. Multimedia, Inc., supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at 962.) CUTSA “does not displace noncontract claims that, although related to a trade secret misappropriation, are independent and based on facts distinct from the facts that support the misappropriation claim.” (Angelica Textile Services, Inc. v.
GARCIA, EDDER EDUARDO VS ETO DOORS CORPORATION
17K00822
Jun 21, 2017
Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco
Los Angeles County, CA
Although Plaintiffs fourth cause of action has some overlap with Plaintiffs misappropriation of trade secret claim, it also rests on an independent nucleus of facts. Thus, at this stage, Plaintiffs fourth cause of action does not fail as a matter of law. California recognizes claims for both common law unfair competition and statutory unfair competition. ( K.C. Multimedia, Inc., supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at p. 961.)
SOLAR OPTIMUM, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, VS MARK HOWE, ET AL.
22GDCV00202
Nov 22, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
On summary judgment the trial court dismissed the claims for breach of contract, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, interference with business relations and conversion, holding that those claims were based upon the misappropriation of trade secrets and therefore preempted by CUTSA. At trial, a jury found against Angelica on its remaining CUTSA claim. Angelica appealed. On appeal, the Angelica court reversed the trial court's dismissal of the non-CUTSA claims.
P.Q.L INC VS REVOLUTION LIGHTING TECHNOLOGIES INC
56-2014-00461060-CU-NP-VTA
Sep 28, 2015
Ventura County, CA
Granite argues that S&P’s second, third, fourth, sixth, seventh and eighth causes of action are preempted by the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”). The CUTSA provides the exclusive remedy for misappropriation of trade secrets, and “preempts common law claims that are ‘based on the same nucleus of facts as the misappropriation of trade secrets claim for relief.’” K.C. Multimedia, Inc. v. Bank of America Technology & Operations, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 939, 958 (int. cit. omit.)
SHADE & PUTNAM TECH. SOL., INC. V. GRANITE FIN’L SOL., INC.
S-CV-0038831
Feb 26, 2019
Placer County, CA
Contract
Breach
Bank of America Technology & Operations, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 939 held that a Business and Profession Code section 17200 claim was preempted by CUTSA. (Id. at 962.) This case appeared to involve a unique situation where the statutory basis for the 17200 claim was CUTSA. While the Court used the term preemption, the decision appeared to be a practical and should be limited to cases where a 17200 claim is based on a CUTSA violation. Defendant’s reliance on C&H Travel & Tours, Inc. v. Chow (C.D.Cal.
NYABENGA LLC VS MICHEL GNUTZM
MSC20-00968
Mar 04, 2021
Steve K. Austin
Contra Costa County, CA
The First Cause of Action for Misappropriation of Trade Secrets sufficiently alleges all the elements of that cause of action as required under Civil Code §3426 and CACI 4401. Cross-Defendant may obtain more specifics as to Cross-Complainant’s contentions through discovery. Bus. & Prof. Code §16600 does not invalidate the Second Cause of Action for Breach of Contract.
WINFERY VS. THE ORIGINAL WINE CLUB, INC.
30-2019-01073426
Dec 20, 2019
Orange County, CA
The nucleus-of-facts test for determining whether a claim is superseded by CUTSA does not focus on whether a non-CUTSA claim requires the pleading of different elements than the CUTSA claim, but rather on whether there is a material distinction between the wrongdoing alleged in a CUTSA claim and that alleged in the non-CUTSA claim. ( Genasys Inc. v. Vector Acoustics, LLC (2022) 638 F.Supp.3d 1135.)
O.R. BARKHORDAR D.D.S, INC, ET AL. VS CRISTINA RICALDY, ET AL.
23TRCV01402
Apr 15, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action alleges violations of the California Uniform Trade Secret Act, Civil Code §§ 3426 et seq. (“CUTSA”).
CV1804655
Feb 11, 2022
Marin County, CA
Plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action alleges violations of the California Uniform Trade Secret Act, Civil Code §§ 3426 et seq. (“CUTSA”).
CV1804655
Feb 14, 2022
Marin County, CA
Plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action alleges violations of the California Uniform Trade Secret Act, Civil Code §§ 3426 et seq. (“CUTSA”).
CV1804655
Feb 12, 2022
Marin County, CA
Plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action alleges violations of the California Uniform Trade Secret Act, Civil Code §§ 3426 et seq. (“CUTSA”).
CV1804655
Feb 13, 2022
Marin County, CA
As such, Plaintiff’s promissory estoppel claim is not subject to an exception and is preempted by CUTSA. Defendants’ demurrer is sustained with 15 days leave to amend. Fifth and sixth causes of action: Plaintiff concedes that its fifth and sixth causes of action for intentional interference with economic relations and negligent interference with economic relations are preempted by the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”) and requests these causes of action be removed. Opposition, 2:8-9.
VITEC ELECTRONICS CORP. VS. VERIS INDUSTRIES, LLC
30-2016-00876606-CU-IP-CJC
Mar 01, 2017
Orange County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.