What is a non-disclosure agreement?

Useful Rulings on Non-Disclosure Agreement

Rulings on Non-Disclosure Agreement

1-25 of 435 results

MISSION HEALTHCARE SERVICES INC VS BRIDGE HOME HEALTH & HOSPICE

Notwithstanding plaintiffs have alleged Providence is the alter ego of the Bridge defendants, Providence is a non-signator on the non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements, which has the attorney's fees clause. (Comp., ¶33.) The breach of contract action was not against the Bridge defendants, but the former employee defendants. The complaint does not allege Providence breached any agreement. Instead, plaintiffs alleged tort claims (conspiracy and intentional interference) against Providence.

  • Hearing

    Nov 29, 2018

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MISSION HEALTHCARE SERVICES INC VS BRIDGE HOME HEALTH & HOSPICE

Notwithstanding plaintiffs have alleged Providence is the alter ego of the Bridge defendants, Providence is a non-signator on the non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements, which has the attorney's fees clause. (Comp., ¶33.) The breach of contract action was not against the Bridge defendants, but the former employee defendants. The complaint does not allege Providence breached any agreement. Instead, plaintiffs alleged tort claims (conspiracy and intentional interference) against Providence.

  • Hearing

    Nov 29, 2018

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MISSION HEALTHCARE SERVICES INC VS BRIDGE HOME HEALTH & HOSPICE

Notwithstanding plaintiffs have alleged Providence is the alter ego of the Bridge defendants, Providence is a non-signator on the non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements, which has the attorney's fees clause. (Comp., ¶33.) The breach of contract action was not against the Bridge defendants, but the former employee defendants. The complaint does not allege Providence breached any agreement. Instead, plaintiffs alleged tort claims (conspiracy and intentional interference) against Providence.

  • Hearing

    Nov 29, 2018

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ESTEBAN DUPONT ENTERPRISES, INC. VS. BORST

Plaintiff’s claim for attorney’s fees succeeds under the Non-Disclosure Agreement (admitted at trial as Ex. 104). The provision provides: “In any legal action between the parties concerning this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys fees and costs." Plaintiff is the prevailing party on the breach of contract claim premised on the Non-Disclosure Agreement.

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2018

PARKER V. ALAI

That being said, defendant is not without recourse if in fact plaintiff has breached the Non-Disclosure Agreement – and that is a cross-complaint for breach of contract. As it turns out, defendant just recently (albeit without leave of court) filed a cross-complaint alleging breach of the Non-Disclosure Agreement (among other things).

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2016

RAY MORGAN COMPANY, LLC VS. BISHOP

The arbitration agreement, while physically and temporally separate from the non-disclosure agreement, does not exist in the abstract; it exists with reference to the non-disclosure agreement and the other terms of employment. Allowing plaintiff to rely only on the employment documents it finds important to its case (the non-disclosure agreements) and ignore the employment documents it finds unhelpful (the arbitration agreements) would be inequitable.

  • Hearing

    Jun 18, 2020

DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES VS CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL ET

Though he has had notice of CHP’s response, counsel for Zrodlo has not come forward with any reason why he will not sign the Non-Disclosure Agreement or why he should not be required to do so. The purpose of the DMV subpoena is for use of the MVARS video at the DMV hearing. The Non-Disclosure Agreement does not in any way limit use of the video at that hearing. The court finds that CHP is not in contempt and need only produce the MVARS video when counsel for Zrodlo signs the Non-Disclosure Agreement.

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2014

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

DEPENDABLE HIGHWAY EXPRESS INC VS SHANE VAN DER WAAG ET AL

Defendants contend that the non-disclosure agreement has a “limitless” definition of trade secret information, which renders it void and unenforceable in its entirety. Opp. at 16-17. Defendants have equated the non-disclosure agreement with a non-competition agreement. They are distinct: the former may be valid and the latter is invalid. Loral Corp. v. Moyes, (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 268, 276.

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2018

ESTEBAN DUPONT ENTERPRISES, INC. VS. BORST

Plaintiff also seeks attorney’s fees under the attorney’s fees provision in the Non-Disclosure Agreement (admitted at trial as Ex. 104). The provision provides: “In any legal action between the parties concerning this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys fees and costs."

  • Hearing

    Nov 28, 2018

GARABEDIAN VS JIMMY’S FAMOUS AMERICAN TAVERN

Pursuant to the arbitration agreement, both Plaintiff and Defendants agreed that any claim they had against each other “shall be submitted to and determined exclusively by binding arbitration . . .” Ekstrom Dec., Exhibit A at ¶ 2. The Non-Disclosure Agreement (attached as Exhibit A to the Complaint) does not impact that mutual agreement but simply states that Defendant “shall be entitled to an injunction prohibiting [Plaintiff] from [violating the Non-Disclosure agreement.] Complaint, Exhibit A at ¶ I(e).

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2018

WILLIAM M. DORFMAN DDS VS PATTI CANTOR ET AL

Cantor’s continued employment with Dorfman was conditioned on her execution of one or more written agreements, including a “Confidentiality, Non-Disclosure and Non-Competition Agreement” (hereafter, the “Confidentiality Agreement”) which Cantor signed on November 30, 2004. The Confidentiality Agreement renders confidential various categories of information, documents, and data, including information pertaining to Dorfman’s patients.

  • Hearing

    Apr 03, 2017

SC127715

Additionally, Plaintiff concedes that his complaint “failed to include his . . . causes of action for Breach of Contract and Breach of non-disclosure agreement.” (Opposition at pg. 2:10-2:12.) Here, this concession is dispositive.

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2018

MACARIUS RIZK VS RYAN NICHOLSON

Additionally, Plaintiff concedes that his complaint “failed to include his . . . causes of action for Breach of Contract and Breach of non-disclosure agreement.” (Opposition at pg. 2:10-2:12.) Here, this concession is dispositive.

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

SAFETY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL VS. JORDAN BRADSHAW

Whether the practical effect of the confidentiality agreements is unlawful restraint on trade cannot be determined on demurrer. Plaintiffs have alleged the essential elements of breach of contract (see CACI 300).

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2017

  • Judge Ed Weil
  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

ESTEBAN DUPONT ENTERPRISES, INC. VS. BORST

Plaintiff's claim for fees appears to encompass all fees incurred in connection with the litigation, and does not even attempt to identify those fees associated with prosecution of the claim under the Non-Disclosure Agreement and/or the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act.

  • Hearing

    Oct 04, 2018

MARIAH CAREY VS LIANNA SHAKHNAZARIAN

This action arises out of an alleged violation of a confidentiality/non-disclosure agreement that Lilanna Shakhnazarian (“Defendant”) allegedly entered into when she was hired as Executive Assistant to Mariah Carey (“Plaintiff”). The Complaint alleges that Defendant violated the confidentiality/non-disclosure agreement by secretly filming Plaintiff engaged in personal, intimate activities without her knowledge or permission and displaying the intimate videos to Plaintiff’s friends and co-workers.

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2019

WHITHAM GROUP, LLC V KARPEL ET AL.

As to Issue #4, this court had previously denied a motion for summary judgment brought by Defendants on the same issue: that the MTCA signed by Defendant Karpel on leaving WG released her from her prior non-disclosure agreement and is a complete defense to this action. The court found that the MCTA was ambiguous, and that parole evidence raised triable issues of fact as to whether the parties intended the MCTA to release Karpel from the previous non- disclosure agreement.

  • Hearing

    Oct 25, 2018

BEVERLY PELUSO VS MOHAWK ALLEY ANIMAL HOSPITAL INC ET AL

In reply, Plaintiff states in her declaration that “I do not recall a discussion of confidentiality or non-disclosure during the Mandatory Settlement Conference with Judge Ongkeko.” (Peluso Decl. ¶ 6.) Based on the foregoing, the Court is not in a position to enforce or enter the settlement agreement. “A settlement agreement is interpreted according to the same principles as any other written agreement.

  • Hearing

    Jun 16, 2017

ANDREW JODY GESSOW VS. RICHARD M. CASHIN ET AL

App.3d 1383, 1390 is distinguishable because in that case the appellant "failed to allege an express non-disclosure term in four earlier complaints and having adopted a position in his prior complaint that there was no such express non-disclosure term, appellant alleged an explicit oral contract of non-disclosure [in his fourth amended complaint.]" There are no such contradictory allegations here.

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2017

OFFICE FUTURE SYSTEMS INC VS LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER

Chui, from whom Sierra obtained the trade secrets, was also subject to a confidentiality and non-disclosure agreement with respect to the source code. (FAC ¶ 29.) These are sufficient allegations that the source code was subject to confidentiality agreements both with LADWP and Chui. The FAC also make detailed allegations of the steps it took to protect its trade secrets. (FAC ¶ 33.) In Epicor Software Corp. v. Alternative Technology Solutions, Inc. (“Epicor”) (C.D. Cal., June 21, 2013, No.

  • Hearing

    Nov 08, 2016

MA VS. EQUITY MANAGEMENT INC

Defendants have failed to show that the employment agreements and confidentiality agreements contain trade secret information, attorney client communications or otherwise private employment information other than standard contractual language.

  • Hearing

    Aug 08, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JUNG VS. CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY MANAGEMENT AND SCIENCES

Defendants argue disqualification is required because David Lee worked for CALUMS San Diego and signed a non-disclosure agreement. Defts.' Exs. A and B. In March 2014, Attorney Lee was hired to teach a class on paralegal studies. He spent approximately two, one-hour sessions on campus. D. Lee Decl., ¶ 7. Attorney Lee resigned on June 12, 2014. M. Lee Decl., ¶ 9. The non-disclosure agreement pertained to the school's trade secrets, confidential information and proprietary data.

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2016

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

SAFETY ENVIROMENTAL CONTROL VS

Bradshaw argues that the relevant facts, particularly the existence of the non-disclosure agreement between Safety and Aramsco, were known to Safety a long time ago, even if they were not known to Safety’s counsel. He further argues that amendment of the complaint is not timely, would prejudice Bradshaw, and would be futile because the proposed amended complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. 2. Futility.

  • Hearing

    Jun 06, 2016

  • Judge Ed Weil
  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

CANNON BUILDING SERVICES, INC. V. DOES

The operative pleading does not include any of the challenged emails, or copies of the referenced confidentiality agreements. The averments that the authors are high-ranking officials subject to the company’s confidentiality agreements are supposition, thin at best. In addition, the averments offered do not on their own show illegal conduct. Exposing company salaries and questioning corporate practices is not necessarily illegal.

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2016

DEFENSE NUTRITION LLC VS JULIAN BAKERY INC

Plaintiff points to the non-disclosure agreement between the parties, which provides that confidential information – including information about customers – received by defendant during its relationship with plaintiff would be kept confidential. (Id., ¶¶ 4-5, Exh. A.) The mere fact that the parties entered into a non-disclosure agreement is not sufficient to warrant sealing the information.

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2016

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 18     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.