Non-Solicitation Clauses

Useful Rulings on Non-Solicitation Clauses

Rulings on Non-Solicitation Clauses

1-25 of 107 results

O CONNOR & SONS INC VS HORNE

"The court concluded the covenant did not violate Business and Professions Code section 16600 to the extent it sought to prevent use of the firm's confidential information to compete and solicit the firm's labor-relations clients. Business and Professions Code section 16600 prohibits contracts restraining employees from engaging in a lawful profession. Misappropriation of trade secret information constitutes an exception to section 16600. (ReadyLink Healthcare v. Cotton (2005) 126 CA4th 1006, 1021-1022.

  • Hearing

CBIZ BENEFITS & INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. VS. GARRETT

The client nonsolicitation provision constitutes an unenforceable covenant not to compete under Business and Professions Code section 16600. It specifically restrains Garrett from engaging in his profession/trade for a period of two years following the termination of his employment with plaintiff, by prohibiting him from directly or indirectly soliciting or causing to be solicited any of plaintiff’s clients that Garrett may have serviced or received information about during his employment with plaintiff.

  • Hearing

O CONNOR & SONS INC VS HORNE

"The court concluded the covenant did not violate Business and Professions Code section 16600 to the extent it sought to prevent use of the firm's confidential information to compete and solicit the firm's labor-relations clients. Business and Professions Code section 16600 prohibits contracts restraining employees from engaging in a lawful profession. Misappropriation of trade secret information constitutes an exception to section 16600. (ReadyLink Healthcare v. Cotton (2005) 126 CA4th 1006, 1021-1022.

  • Hearing

O CONNOR & SONS INC VS HORNE

"The court concluded the covenant did not violate Business and Professions Code section 16600 to the extent it sought to prevent use of the firm's confidential information to compete and solicit the firm's labor-relations clients. Business and Professions Code section 16600 prohibits contracts restraining employees from engaging in a lawful profession. Misappropriation of trade secret information constitutes an exception to section 16600. (ReadyLink Healthcare v. Cotton (2005) 126 CA4th 1006, 1021-1022.

  • Hearing

O CONNOR & SONS INC VS HORNE

"The court concluded the covenant did not violate Business and Professions Code section 16600 to the extent it sought to prevent use of the firm's confidential information to compete and solicit the firm's labor-relations clients. Business and Professions Code section 16600 prohibits contracts restraining employees from engaging in a lawful profession. Misappropriation of trade secret information constitutes an exception to section 16600. (ReadyLink Healthcare v. Cotton (2005) 126 CA4th 1006, 1021-1022.

  • Hearing

ROBERT HALF INTERNATIONAL, INC. A DELAWARE CORPOR VS. DONNA FARRUGIA ET AL

The covenant to protect the trade secrets is enforceable and does not run afoul of Business and Professions Code sec. 16600. The motion is granted with leave to amend as to the allegations relating to paragraph 11 of the contract [non-solicitation of employee clause]. A contractual provision preventing a departing employee from "raiding" his former employer's employees is "not void on its face under Business and Professions Code section 16600." Loral Corp. v. Moyes, 174 Cal.App.3d 268, 280 (1985).

  • Hearing

TEKSOFT VS. SYSTEMS AMERICA

Arthur Andersen LLP (2008) 44 Cal.4th 937 (affirming the invalidity of a noncompetition agreement that prohibited the employee, for an 18-month period, from performing professional services of the type he had provided while at the firm, for any client on whose account he had worked during 18 months prior to his termination and, for a year after termination, from soliciting any client of the firm's Los Angeles office. The only exceptions from section 16600 are those provided by statute. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

PROFIT RECOVERY PARTNERS LLC VS. HBR CONSULTING LLC

Wilkinson solicited Kilicarslan and Montgomery to leave PRP and join HBR. To conceal the solicitation, Wilkinson set up a plan for Kilicarslan and Montgomery to respond to website. (UMF 38). Defendants contend that Bus. & Prof. Code, § 16600 voids the non-solicitation agreement. The statute provides that “Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.”

  • Hearing

ALPHATEC SPINE INC VS NUVASIVE INC

Here, Plaintiffs are challenging non-compete and non-solicitation clauses. "Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void." (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 16600.) Plaintiffs do not cite to any explicit Legislative declaration that waiver of a plaintiff's rights under section 16600 is unenforceable. Labor Code Section 925 recently became effective, but does not retroactively apply to Mr.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ALPHATEC SPINE INC VS NUVASIVE INC

Here, Plaintiffs are challenging non-compete and non-solicitation clauses. "Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void." (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 16600.) Plaintiffs do not cite to any explicit Legislative declaration that waiver of a plaintiff's rights under section 16600 is unenforceable. Labor Code Section 925 recently became effective, but does not retroactively apply to Mr.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

AMN HEALTHCARE INC VS. AYA HEALTHCARE SERVICES INC

The Court finds that, as a matter of law, these Non-Solicitation Covenants are unlawful restraints of trade that violate Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 16600 that voids agreements "by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind." Edwards v. Arthur Anderson LLP (2008) 44 Cal.4th 937, 948. The Court agrees with the moving party that Edwards changed the landscape with respect to the analysis of Business & Professions Code 16600.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SUNPOWER CORPORATION V. MARTIN DEBONO, ET AL.

Arthur Andersen LLP (2008) 44 Cal.4th 937, 948 (Edwards) addressed an agreement which prohibited the employee from soliciting any client of the firm for a year after termination. The court found the agreement invalid and took an expansive view of Business and Professions Code section 16600, ruling that the only exceptions to its bar on noncompetition agreements were those expressly stated by statute.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Presiding

  • County

    Santa Clara County, CA

PROTOCOL AGENCY INC VS MARSHALL HEALTHCARE STAFFING ET AL

The FAC adequately alleges facts demonstrating that Defendants purposefully and willfully retained Plaintiff’s trade secrets in an effort to improperly solicit Plaintiff’s customers and clients. Therefore, the motion to strike is DENIED as it relates to the allegations and request for punitive damages under CUTSA. Unless waived, notice of ruling by Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

WINFERY VS. THE ORIGINAL WINE CLUB, INC.

Code §16600 does not invalidate the Second Cause of Action for Breach of Contract. The statute provides that every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void. Cross-Complainant alleges that in violation of the contract, Cross-Defendants solicited Confidential Customers, who are alleged to be trade secrets. To that extent, Bus. & Prof. Code §16600 does not apply.

  • Hearing

ALPHATEC SPINE INC VS NUVASIVE INC

Here, Plaintiffs are challenging non-compete and non-solicitation clauses. "Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void." (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 16600.) Plaintiffs do not cite to any explicit Legislative declaration that waiver of a plaintiff's rights under section 16600 is unenforceable. Labor Code Section 925 recently became effective, but does not retroactively apply to Mr.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ALPHATEC SPINE INC VS NUVASIVE INC

Here, Plaintiffs are challenging non-compete and non-solicitation clauses. "Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void." (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 16600.) Plaintiffs do not cite to any explicit Legislative declaration that waiver of a plaintiff's rights under section 16600 is unenforceable. Labor Code Section 925 recently became effective, but does not retroactively apply to Mr.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CAPITAL ASSET EXCHANGE & TRADING V. GRUBBS

It also requires Grubbs to “not use any Confidential Information” to dissuade plaintiff’s customers “or to solicit or influence” any new customers. (Id. ¶ 8.) These provisions are thus an unenforceable restraint on trade. (See Bus. & Profs. Code, § 16600; see also AMN Healthcare, Inc. v. Aya Healthcare Services, Inc. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 923, 935-940; The Retirement Group v. Galante (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1226, 1235-1240; Dowell v. Biosense Webster, Inc. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 564, 575-579.)

  • Hearing

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

In the Reply, Defendant fails to cite any authority requiring that Plaintiff plead the details of the identity of employee who were solicited and when they were solicited, by whom, the specific solicitations, the terms of the solicitations, the salary amounts/benefits and the disparaging remarks. Those are details that may be ascertained during discovery.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

HALCYON FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGY, L.P. VS. VISTA EQUITY PARTNERS MANAGEMENT, LLC ET AL

Vista has not shown that the contractual anti-solicitation provision alleged in paragraph 12 of the complaint is unenforceable as a matter of law as an unlawful restraint on an individual's lawful profession, trade or business pursuant to Business & Professions Code ? 16600.

  • Hearing

FELDMAN V. GUY CARPENTER & COMPANY LLC

Plaintiffs showed they will likely prevail on their second cause of action for violation of B&P section 17200 Plaintiffs allege Defendants engaged in an unlawful business practice by violating section 16600 of the Business & Professions Code. Section 16600 provides that “every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.” The use of a non-compete in violation of section 16600 is violation of section 17200.

  • Hearing

MONTE NIDO RESIDENTIAL CENTER LLC VS TERRY EAGAN M D

It is not apparent from the pleadings how the non-solicitation provision prevents Eagan from performing these functions. That being the case, it is not apparent how the provision at issue restrains Eagan “from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind.” (Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600.) This is true regardless of whether one employs the common law rule of “reasonableness” or the broad, policy-based approach of Edwards.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

NOVARTIS INSTITUTE FOR FUNCTIONAL GENOMICS INC VS. LI

This cause of action is deficient because no facts are alleged regarding how Defendant attempted to enforce the non-solicitation agreement, and how this attempt caused the alleged harm. Ultimate facts regarding the wrongful conduct and causation must be alleged. The fifth cause of action is exclusively premised on the attempt to enforce the non-solicitation provision. As alleged, this provision violates Business and Professions Code Section 16600.

  • Hearing

JENNI RIVERA ENTERPRISES LLC VS PETE SALGADO ET AL

Unlawful Restraint on Trade (Business and Professions Code Section 16600) Salgado argues that the NDA is an unlawful restraint on trade under California law and is therefore unenforceable. The applicable statute provides, “… every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.” Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600.

  • Hearing

NOVARTIS INSTITUTE FOR FUNCTIONAL GENOMICS INC VS. LI

This cause of action is deficient because no facts are alleged regarding how Defendant attempted to enforce the non-solicitation agreement, and how this attempt caused the alleged harm. Ultimate facts regarding the wrongful conduct and causation must be alleged. The fifth cause of action is exclusively premised on the attempt to enforce the non-solicitation provision. As alleged, this provision violates Business and Professions Code Section 16600.

  • Hearing

FELDMAN V. GUY CARPENTER & COMPANY LLC

Plaintiffs showed they will likely prevail on their second cause of action for violation of B&P section 17200 Plaintiffs allege Defendants engaged in an unlawful business practice by violating section 16600 of the Business & Professions Code. Section 16600 provides that “every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.” The use of a non-compete in violation of section 16600 is violation of section 17200.

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.