Non-Solicitation Clauses in California

"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.

MOTION-MERITS Defendants contend the non-solicitation provision in the SPA violates Business and Professions Code section 16600 because it restricts the mobility of Oztera employees. Defendants also contend that there is no exception to 16600 is applicable here. Conversely, Oztera argues the non-solicitation provision in the SPA is permissible under Loral Corp. v. Moyes (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 268 ("Moyes").

MOTION-MERITS Defendants contend the non-solicitation provision in the SPA violates Business and Professions Code section 16600 because it restricts the mobility of Oztera employees. Defendants also contend that there is no exception to 16600 is applicable here. Conversely, Oztera argues the non-solicitation provision in the SPA is permissible under Loral Corp. v. Moyes (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 268 ("Moyes").

Exception Under Section 16602.5 Defendants also argue that Section 16600 has no bearing at all because this case falls under Section 16602.5. Section 16602.5 is an exception to the general rule enumerated in Section 16600.

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.)

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.

Code § 16600. The provision before the Court, however, is a confidentiality provision which, in part, is overbroad and violates Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600. The offending language easily may be severed: the clause after and/or is valid and may properly be enforced. Doing so does not undermine the purpose of Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600. Additionally, the parties specifically contracted to allow severance of illegal provisions. Defendants demurrer is OVERRULED.

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.”

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.

As such, even if certain provisions are unenforceable pursuant to Section 16600, this is not the case for provisions addressing Defendants conduct during her employment . (See Techno Lite, Inc. v. Emcod, LLC (2020) 44 Cal.App.5 th 462, 471 [[Section 16600 has consistently been interpreted as invalidating any employment agreement that unreasonably interferes with an employees ability to compete with an employer after his or her employment ends. [Citation.]

Analysis Legality of the Non-Competition and Non-Solicitation Covenants. In context, section 16600 is best read not to render void per se all contractual restraints on business dealings, but rather to subject such restraints to a rule of reason. (Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 1130, 1150.)

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.

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.

California courts ‘have consistently affirmed that section 16600 evinces a settled legislative policy in favor of open competition and employee mobility.’” ( Brown v. TGS Management Company, LLC (2020) 57 Cal.App.5 th , s upra , at 314–315. Brown also makes clear that any restrictions on competition or solicitation by a former employee after his or her employment is terminated are illegal per se unless expressly permitted by section 16600. et. seq .

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.

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.

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.

(2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 923, 936 [“Turning to the instant case, we independently conclude that the nonsolicitation of employee provision in the CNDA is void under section 16600. Indeed, the broadly worded provision prevents individual defendants, for a period of at least one year after termination of employment with AMN, from either “directly or indirectly” soliciting or recruiting, or causing others to solicit or induce, any employee of AMN.

Code, § 16600, subd. (b)(1).)

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.

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.

Further, section 2 (d) states the restrictions "are expressly intended to be limited to prohibition of solicitation utilizing the Confidential Information, as defined herein, and shall not otherwise restrict or, impede any lawful solicitation under Business & Professions Code § 16600." Clearly the agreement intends to avoid violations of Business & Professions Code § 16600.

Although the 2004 Employment Agreement restrains competition, Plaintiff contends that these agreements are valid under the trade secret exception to § 16600. See Plaintiff’s Supplemental Brief at 1-2. According to this exception, “a former employee may be barred from soliciting existing customers to redirect their business away from the former employer and to the employee’s new business if the employee is utilizing trade secret information to solicit those customers.” The Retirement Group v.

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.

Section 16600 is not an invitation to employees to bite the hand that feeds them.” ( Id. at 474.) Defendants’ argument is significantly undermined by Techno Lite , which indicates Section 16600 should not be construed in favor of “employees who undermine their employer by competing with it while still employed,” as was the case here.

Seventh Cause of Action (Breach of Written Contract—Solicitation of Employees). Defendant argues that the contractual non-solicitation provision is void under B & P Code § 16600. The seventh cause of action is for breach of the Confidential Information and Non-Solicitation Agreement attached as Exh. A to the 1AC.

The anti-solicitation clause violates California Business & Professions Code ? 16600. See Edwards v. Arthur Anderson LLP (2008) 44 Cal.4th 937, 948; Dowell v. Pacesetter (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 564. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.

With regard to plaintiff's prayer for relief (1)(a) and (1)(b) for a declaration the severance provisions are void pursuant to Business and Professions Code sections 16600 and 17200 and the case law interpreting those sections, summary adjudication is granted to AP. The facts are essentially undisputed.

Analysis Turning to the instant case, we independently conclude that the nonsolicitation of employee provision in the CNDA is void under section 16600. Indeed, the broadly worded provision prevents individual defendants, for a period of at least one year after termination of employment with AMN, from either “directly or indirectly” soliciting or recruiting, or causing others to solicit or induce, any employee of AMN.

Code § 16600 Cross-Defendants argue Cross-Complainants’ claims are barred by Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600 provides, “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.” Cross-Defendants’ arguments lack merit. First, “nonsolicitation clauses are allowable . . . when they protect trade secrets or confidential proprietary information.

To the extent Humphrey complains that the non-solicitation provision is void under Business and Professions Code section 16600, those causes of action also allege he violated other provisions of the employment agreement. A party may not demur to a portion of a cause of action. (PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1681.)

By its terms, the motion seeks summary adjudication on three of these issues: 1) “That the non-competition and non-solicitation restrictive covenants found in both Agreements . . . are void, unenforceable, and violate California Business and Professions Code section 16600” [First Amended Complaint ¶38(c)]; (2) that California law applies to determine the enforceability of the restrictive covenants contained in Koulouras’ 2008 . . . Agreement and the 2016 . . . Agreement.”

Plaintiff further seeks a declaration that the paragraphs entitled “Non-Solicitation” and “Non-competition” found within Plaintiff’s Employment Agreement are entirely void and unenforceable pursuant to Business & Professions Code section 16600. Plaintiff has submitted the requisite documentation and provided sufficient evidence to support the judgment sought. However, the Court notes that Plaintiff has failed to dismiss the remaining Doe Defendants.

Defendant’s demurrer to the 1rst (breach of contract), 5th (employee solicitation), and 8th (breach of duty of loyalty) causes of action of plaintiff’s first amended complaint. Demurrer sustained in part, with leave to amend, and overruled in part. All demurrers on the basis of uncertainty are overruled. The demurrer to the first cause of action for breach of contract is sustained, with leave to amend, on the basis that the cause of action appears barred by Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600.

Solicitation of Clients.

Defendant unsuccessfully tries to distinguish its Agreement as a no-solicitation versus no-hire agreement. A former employee's covenant not to hire other employees of his or her former employer, as opposed to a covenant not to solicit them, may be unenforceable: “Equity will not enjoin a former employee from receiving and considering applications from employees of his former employer, even though the circumstances be such that he should be enjoined from soliciting their applications.” [Loral Corp. v.

Finally, Defendants assert the breach of written contract fails because it is void under Business and Professions Code section 16600. Business and Professions Code section 16600 provides "[e]xcept 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.)

Regardless of whether the scope of the contract is narrowed to only prohibit solicitation of customers using purported trade secrets, Business and Professions Code section 16600 has consistently been interpreted to bar enforcement of a contractual clause purporting to ban a former employee from soliciting former customers. (The Retirement Group v. Galante (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1226, 1238; see, Dowell v.

Cross-Defendants allege that B & P Code § 16600 does not invalidate protection of trade secrets, which is the essence of the 1AXC. However, this cause of action is based upon the attempt in the original Complaint to seek to enforce ¶¶ 4.3 and 4.4—the non-competition and non-solicitation clauses in Plaintiff’s employment contract. 1AXC, ¶ 25.

ISSUE 7 – Plaintiff’s Fourth Cause of Action for Breach of Contract against Allitix fails because The Independent Contrac-tor Agreement unenforceable pursuant to Civil Code section 16600 because the Confidentiality Agreement and Non-Solicitation clauses unreasonably restricts trade. This is raising an affirmative defense; illegality or unenforceability, is an affirmative defense to a cause of action. (See 2 Cal. Affirmative Def. § 37:14, 37:5 and n.14 (2d ed.); Civ. Proc.

In conclusion, absent a proffer of harm caused to plaintiff while Davar was still in its employ, B&P §16600 bars any claim based upon Davar setting up Zutila as a competing entity on plaintiff’s time; however, the facts alleged are enough to permit a tort claim against Davar for soliciting plaintiff’s employees in violation of industry standards.

Grove Street, Anaheim, CA 92806 except to attend shareholder meetings for Barr set to meet on the premises, and (3) solicitation of employees of cross-complainant Barr, with “solicitation” as defined in American Building Maintenance Co., Inc. v. West (1952) 39 Cal.2d 198. As to the customer list, cross-complainant Barr failed to present sufficient evidence that this list has value arising from its secrecy. ABBA Rubber Co. v. Seaquist (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1, 19.

Business & Professions Code section 16600 states that “every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.” (Bus. & Prof. Code §16600.) Non-compete agreements prevent employees from working for competitors and are generally unenforceable in California. Non-solicitation agreements prevent customers and/or competitors from hiring personnel.

Anti-solicitation provisions would be inapplicable to much of the conduct alleged. Angelica Textile Services, Inc. v. Park (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 495, 509 (noting that Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600 does not limit restrictions on an employee's conduct while employed as the employee owes the employer a duty of loyalty). Defendants' attack on the validity of the agreement in question is an argument that is outside the pleadings (the agreement is not even attached).

Significantly, “[s]ection 16600 does not invalidate an employee's agreement not to disclose his former employer's confidential customer lists or other trade secrets or not to solicit those customers.” (Loral Corp. v. Moyes (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 268, 276.) “[A] covenant not to compete will not be viewed as a violation of section 16600 if it is ‘necessary to protect the employer's trade secrets’” (D'sa v. Playhut, Inc. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 927, 935.)

Pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 16600, subject to some statutory exceptions not pertinent here, “every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.”

Moving Defendant argues that the above provisions of the contract are void and unenforceable under Business and Professions Code section 16600. This 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.1 (Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600.)

(B&P 16600.) A former employee cannot use his former employer's trade secrets to solicit business from his employer's customers. (American Credit Co. v. Sacks (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 622, 634.) There is insufficient evidence Defendant has or is using Plaintiff's trade secrets in any manner and in particulart to solicit Plaintiff's customers. There is insufficient evidence that the information is a trade secret. (See, e.g., Morlife, Inc. v.

Under the "objective speciousness" prong, in the MSJ Order, this Court found that "as a matter of law, [AMN's] 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'." This Court further held that "the evidence does not show that the defendants misappropriated trade secrets" and that the email Ms.

To the extent § 4.1 seeks to prevent VillaSport from soliciting and hiring the Argentina ICs, this is barred by Business and Professions Code section 16600 for the same reason this Court found the MSA's no-hire and non-solicitation provision was unenforceable — California bars companies like Mobomo from using contractual provisions to restrict employee mobility. Nor does inclusion of claims for VillaSport’s alleged breach of the Consulting Agreements and the ICA save the cause of action.

To the extent § 4.1 seeks to prevent VillaSport from soliciting and hiring the Argentina ICs, this is barred by Business and Professions Code section 16600 for the same reason this Court found the MSA's no-hire and non-solicitation provision was unenforceable — California bars companies like Mobomo from using contractual provisions to restrict employee mobility. Nor does inclusion of claims for VillaSport’s alleged breach of the Consulting Agreements and the ICA save the cause of action.

To the extent § 4.1 seeks to prevent VillaSport from soliciting and hiring the Argentina ICs, this is barred by Business and Professions Code section 16600 for the same reason this Court found the MSA's no-hire and non-solicitation provision was unenforceable — California bars companies like Mobomo from using contractual provisions to restrict employee mobility. Nor does inclusion of claims for VillaSport’s alleged breach of the Consulting Agreements and the ICA save the cause of action.

To the extent § 4.1 seeks to prevent VillaSport from soliciting and hiring the Argentina ICs, this is barred by Business and Professions Code section 16600 for the same reason this Court found the MSA's no-hire and non-solicitation provision was unenforceable — California bars companies like Mobomo from using contractual provisions to restrict employee mobility. Nor does inclusion of claims for VillaSport’s alleged breach of the Consulting Agreements and the ICA save the cause of action.

To the extent § 4.1 seeks to prevent VillaSport from soliciting and hiring the Argentina ICs, this is barred by Business and Professions Code section 16600 for the same reason this Court found the MSA's no-hire and non-solicitation provision was unenforceable — California bars companies like Mobomo from using contractual provisions to restrict employee mobility. Nor does inclusion of claims for VillaSport’s alleged breach of the Consulting Agreements and the ICA save the cause of action.

It is true that the FAC also alleges that Byung, Chuang, and Su also breached the non-solicitation obligations. (FAC ¶ 46.) However, BCS argues that even if these clauses themselves are unenforceable pursuant to Business & Professions Code section 16600, these unenforceable clauses are severable, and a valid causes of action exists relating to the breach of the confidentiality provisions of the agreement.

Defendants failed to cite to authority which indicates a non-solicitation clause directed at preventing the solicitation of coworkers, violates Business & Professions Code section 16600. As a result, Defendants have made no showing that the non-solicitation clause at issue is void.

Defendant’s demurrer to the first (breach of contract – client solicitation) and fifth (breach of contract – employee solicitation) causes of action of plaintiff’s second amended complaint. Demurrer’s sustained with leave to amend. The demurrer to the first and fifth causes of action for breach of contract in plaintiff’s second amended complaint (the “2ndAC”) are each sustained with leave to amend, on the basis that the causes of action both appear to be barred by application of Bus. & Prof. Code § 166000.

VillaSport and Syufy repeat their argument that Section 16600 also bars this cause of action, but this cause of action is not based on VillaSport’s solicitation or hiring of the consultants. Rather, Mobomo alleges that VillaSport “prevented performance of the Consulting Agreements and made their performance more expensive or difficult by sabotaging the successful completion of the VillaOS project and by refusing to pay Mobomo’s invoices under the Contract between. Mobomo and VillaSport.”

VillaSport and Syufy repeat their argument that Section 16600 also bars this cause of action, but this cause of action is not based on VillaSport’s solicitation or hiring of the consultants. Rather, Mobomo alleges that VillaSport “prevented performance of the Consulting Agreements and made their performance more expensive or difficult by sabotaging the successful completion of the VillaOS project and by refusing to pay Mobomo’s invoices under the Contract between. Mobomo and VillaSport.”

VillaSport and Syufy repeat their argument that Section 16600 also bars this cause of action, but this cause of action is not based on VillaSport’s solicitation or hiring of the consultants. Rather, Mobomo alleges that VillaSport “prevented performance of the Consulting Agreements and made their performance more expensive or difficult by sabotaging the successful completion of the VillaOS project and by refusing to pay Mobomo’s invoices under the Contract between. Mobomo and VillaSport.”

Business and Professions Code section 16600 provides that every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600.) California courts have consistently declared Business and Professions Code section 16600 to be an expression of public policy which ensures that every citizen retains the right to pursue any lawful employment and enterprise of his or her choice. ( See, e.g., Kelton v.

Explanation: Non-solicitation/Non-compete Agreements and Trade Secrets Business and Professions Code section 16600 states, “Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.”

While the non-solicitation clause is void to the extent it sought to restrain Defendant Owen from soliciting customers developed by Plaintiff after he became employed by Plaintiff, or the former employees of Plaintiff, the portion of the contract that is void is readily excisable from the portion that is not. (See, Swenson v. File (1970) 3 Cal.3d 389, 395 [under section 16600, a contract in restraint of trade is only “to that extent void”]; see also, Armendariz v. Found.

California Business and Professions Code section 16600 provides that, subject to exceptions not relevant here, 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.) Defendants base this argument on two provisions: a non-solicitation provision in the Invention Agreements, and an Assignment of Inventions provision. 1.

Non-Solicitation of Company Employees, Contractors, Consultants, and Customers.

Non-solicitation clause Defendants argue that the non-solicitation clause is void in California. “[Business and Professions Code] [s]ection 16600 provides, ‘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.’ (Italics added.)

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

Malamed, however, cites to no case law holding that a party is entitled to trial preference under section 36 subdivision (e) where a claim for declaratory relief under section 16600 is made.

Code § 16600.) However, forbidding employees from stealing an employer’s confidential customer information in no way runs afoul of Lab. Code § 16600. (Neville v. Chudacoff (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1269-70; Robert L. Cloud & Associates, Inc. v. Mikesell (1999 69 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1150 – “acts of solicitation of the former employer's customers and the misuse of confidential information are acts of unfair competition that may be enjoined”.)

That is not barred by Business and Professions Code section 16600 and falls within the section 16601 exception. As for the sale of the goodwill, Rubin is correct that there is no express reference in the contract as to the plaintiff’s purchase of good will. And Rubin seems correct in his claim that the non-solicitation covenants may be too broad and therefore invalid. But whether the parties considered the purchase of the of the goodwill as part of the purchase price is a question of fact.

The Non-Competition/ Non-Solicitation Class has the predominant common question of employment terms plaintiff asserts violate Business and Professions Code section 16600. The Wage Settlement Class has the predominant common question regarding the sufficiency of wage statements. The Business Expense Class has the predominant common question regarding WestEd’s policy for reimbursement of business expenses. Each of these classes is shown to be numerous with an adequate and typical class representative.

Defendant relies on California Business and Professions Code section 16600, arguing that a fiduciary duty on a non-managerial employee somehow restricts their mobility and freedom to work. Section 16600 reads: 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.

Section 16600 of the Business and Professions Code Plaintiffs’ cause of action for rescission is also based on plaintiffs’ assertion that the agreement violates Business and Professions Code section 16600, which renders any contract void to the extent that it restrains one from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business.

The Non-Competition/ Non-Solicitation Class has the predominant common question of employment terms plaintiff asserts violate Business and Professions Code section 16600. The Wage Settlement Class has the predominant common question regarding the sufficiency of wage statements. The Business Expense Class has the predominant common question regarding WestEd’s policy for reimbursement of business expenses. Each of these classes is shown to be numerous with an adequate and typical class representative.

The court understands what the moving party means is, "The first cause of action for breach of contract is without merit because cross-complainants have no evidence that Mols solicited clients from cross-complainants." Moving parties have not demonstrated they are entitled to summary adjudication on this ground. Mols states in his declaration that he has never solicited any clients of Prime Tax of Parakore. (Mols dec., ¶ 6).

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

“Meaney bragged to [Olsen, another Chasteen Construction employee] that he had solicited about $5.2 million in 18 business away from Heritage [Chasteen].” (Chasteen’s Evid. Vol. 3 - Olsen Decl., Exh. K ¶ 20.; see also Exh. Q p. 25 [August 2011 agreement signed by Meaney for Blackstone on construction project].)

Business and Professions Code section 16600 provides that every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600.) California courts have consistently declared Business and Professions Code section 16600 to be an expression of public policy which ensures that every citizen retains the right to pursue any lawful employment and enterprise of his or her choice. ( See, e.g., Kelton v.

Here, plaintiff’s second and third causes of action do allege some trade secret violations, including the defendant’s alleged misuse of confidential information obtained during his employment with plaintiff in order to solicit plaintiff’s clients and employees for his own benefit. (Complaint ¶¶ 34-37.)

Code section 16600. Thus, the Court must determine whether these statutes involve un-waivable rights. The TAA is a remedial statute designed to protect artists seeking employment. (See Buchwald v. Superior Court (1967) 25 7 Cal.App.2d 347, 350; Marathon Entm’t, Inc. v. Blasi (2008) 42 Cal.4th 974, 984-986.) The TAA requires those acting as a talent agency by soliciting or procuring artistic employment to obtain a talent agency license. (See Labor Code § 1700.5.)

Thus, § 16600 is not applicable. In sum, the Court must grant Desert Oasis’ request for preliminary injunction as to NP Lopez. b.

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

As for the employee solicitation, plaintiff concedes in the opening brief that this is not about mere solicitation, but rather solicitation in an effort to access a competitor’s trade secrets. B&P §16600 provides in pertinent part: “every contract by which anyone is retrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.” This generally means that persons are free to leave one company for a competitor. See Edwards v.

Code, § 16600 voids the contract. Business and Professions Code section 16600 states: Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.

Code, § 16600.) In California, covenants not to compete are void, subject to several statutory exceptions. (Edwards v. Arthur Anderson LLP (2008) 44 Cal.4th 937, 945.) Section 16600 evinces a settled legislative policy in favor of open competition, employee mobility, and protects the important legal right of persons to pursue and engage in any lawful employment, enterprise, business, and occupation of their choosing, such that the California Supreme Court generally condemns noncompetition agreements.

Business and Professions Code section 16600 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. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600.) In doing so, this Court discussed at length that VL Systems, Inc. v. Unisen, Inc. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 708, applied to the facts of the instant case, rather than Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc.

In the court’s ruling on the preliminary injunction the court engaged in extensive analysis to conclude that that the non-competition provisions upon which Beacon Pointe relies are invalid and unenforceable under Business and Professions Code section 16600 with respect to the injunctive relief sought by Beacon Pointe. This invalidity appears facially as a violation of section 16600. (See Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP (2008) 44 Cal.4th 937, 948; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 526, subd.

The post-termination non-compete provision of the ICA is void under Business and Professions Code section 16600. In that ruling, the court granted WackPro leave to more specifically plead a breach of “contractual obligations which arise during the existence of the contract, not just post-termination, and which do not violate Business and Professions Code section 16600.”

(“Non-Solicitation Agreement”).

Even though an employee’s contractual agreement not to solicit an employer’s customers is not enforceable under B&P section 16600, the court may still enjoin tortious conduct as violation of trade secret law or as unfair competition under B&P section 17200. The Retirement Group v. Galante , (2009) 176 Cal.App.4 th 1226, 1238-41.

or work on, or attempt to accept, service, or work on any such competitive business from any Customer Accounts that a member may not solicit or in any way do business with any of the Customer Accounts that a member may not solicit to the extent that the business is the same or substantially similar to that provided by Pacific Series, LIA, and LIS.

The Confidentiality Agreement also contained a post-employment restrictive covenant that prohibited Braden and other employees who signed the Confidentiality Agreement from soliciting or causing to solicit Plaintiff BakeMarks clients or prospective clients for one year after their separation date. (FACC ¶ 8.)

Aya Healthcare Services, Inc. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 923, 936 [holding that “nonsolicitation of employee provision” in an employer’s “Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement,” which prevented former employee from “either ‘directly or indirectly’ soliciting or recruiting, or causing others to solicit or induce” any employees “for a period for a period of at least one year after termination of employment” with employer, was void under Business and Professions Code section 16600].)

Hillman argues he took no Confidential Information in a tangible form, so there is nothing to return, and he used no Confidential Information to solicit any of BRM’s customers. Analysis Except as provided by statute, “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. C. § 16600.) A former employee has the right “to follow any of the common occupations of life.” (Continental Car-Na-Var Corp. v.

Some courts have stated that the essential elements for a confidential relationship are 1) The vulnerability of one party to the other which 2) results in the empowerment of the stronger party by the weaker which 3) empowerment has been solicited or accepted by the stronger party and 4) prevents the weaker party from effectively protecting itself. ( Id . at p. 272.)

Moreover, the client had not solicited the employee, who had instead simply responded to the client’s job posting. The consulting firm sued the client to enforce the no hire provision. The court held the provision was unenforceable because it effectively restrained the employee’s job mobility even though he was not a party to the contract. The facts in this case are obviously distinguishable.

Plaintiff further states that [ Hekmatniaz] used the misappropriated customer lists to solicit business from multiple coaches in March and April of 2022 in order to cut [Plaintiff] out and partner directly with him& ( Ambuehl Decl., ¶ 10.). (July 26, 2023 Order at p. 18:16-23.) Based on the foregoing, the Court declines to strike section 3 of the proposed order.

As to the alleged "solicitation of agents," Plaintiff fails to sufficiently allege the subject solicitation was accompanied by wrongful conduct (see Diodes, Inc. v. Franzen (1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 244, 255-256 ["Diodes"]) because Plaintiff fails to allege facts indicating that the non-solicitation provisions in the "Associate Membership Agreement" ("AMA") are enforceable –notwithstanding Business and Professions Code § 16600 – as necessary to protect trade secrets (see Edwards v.