Misappropriation of Trade Secrets in California

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).)

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.)

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.)

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.

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.

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.)

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.)

The California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”) is codified at Civil Code § 3426 et seq.

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.

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.

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.)

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.”

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).)

of trade secret.”

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

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.

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.

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.)

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.

of trade secret.”

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRET The demurrer to the First Cause of Action for misappropriation of trade secret is OVERRULED.

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.

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.

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

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.

Tenth Cause of Action for Misappropriation of Trade Secret 8.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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

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.

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.

MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS, CIVIL CODE § 3426 ET SEQ. 6. SERVICES RENDERED - QUANTUM MERUIT.

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.)

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.

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.)

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

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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

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

California’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”) is codified in Civil Code sections 3426 through 3426.11.

. § 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.

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).

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.

The demurrer to the 2nd cause of action for misappropriation of trade secret is SUSTAINED, without leave to amend.

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

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.

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.)

Plaintiffs seek issuance of a preliminary injunction based on their causes of action misappropriation of trade secret and unfair competition.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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"].)

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”).

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.)

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.)

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].)

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.

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.

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."

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.)

Plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action alleges violations of the California Uniform Trade Secret Act, Civil Code §§ 3426 et seq. (“CUTSA”).

Plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action alleges violations of the California Uniform Trade Secret Act, Civil Code §§ 3426 et seq. (“CUTSA”).

Plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action alleges violations of the California Uniform Trade Secret Act, Civil Code §§ 3426 et seq. (“CUTSA”).

Plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action alleges violations of the California Uniform Trade Secret Act, Civil Code §§ 3426 et seq. (“CUTSA”).