What is restraint of trade?

Useful Resources for Restraint of Trade

Recent Rulings on Restraint of Trade

76-100 of 113 results

HORTON VS SOCKET PAYMENT SERVICES [E-FILED]

Accordingly, the court strikes the following allegations and prayers ¶ 10, line 16: "injunctive relief' ¶ 167, line 22: "injunctive relief' Prayer for Relief, ¶ 9 Prayer for Relief, ¶ 13, lines 2-3: "be enjoined from further acts of restraint of trade or unfair competitions" and "injunctive." Plaintiff concedes Defendants' motion as to the PAGA cause of action and prayer. Defendants' motion to strike the PAGA cause of action is granted. The court strikes ¶¶ 203-216 and Prayer, ¶ 8.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2017

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

RICHMOND COMPASSIONATE VS RICH

Great Western Financial Corp. (1968), supra, 69 Cal.2d 305, 316-317, the court noted that ‘ “contracts, combinations, or conspiracies in restraint of . . . trade or commerce cannot be alleged generally in the words of the statute but . . . facts must be set forth which indicate the existence of such contracts, combinations or conspiracies.” ’ Thus, general allegations of a conspiracy unaccompanied by a statement of facts constituting the conspiracy and explaining its objectives and impact in restraint of trade

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2017

CHRISTOPHER T BARONE VS FLUID CONSERVATION SYSTEMS INC ET AL

In response, Plaintiff contends that his allegations are sufficient to meet the elements of this tort because establish a restraint of trade. (See id. at p. 409.) The portion of Della Penna Plaintiff cites to support his argument is taken from Justice Mosk’s concurrence, does not reflect the main opinion of the case, and is not controlling given the other case law on this subject.

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2017

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ERN ENTERPRISES, INC. VS. EASTWESTPRONTO, INC.

Fifteenth Affirmative Defense - (Violations of State and Local Laws) The relevant allegations are as follows: Plaintiff is barred from any relief based on Plaintiffs violations of State and local laws preventing restraint of trade and pursuit of a lawful profession. The court overrules the demurrer to this affirmative defense. Moving Party contends defendant has not alleged the state and local laws upon which this affirmative defense is based.

  • Hearing

    Jun 01, 2017

SPOTLIGHT ON COASTAL CORRUPTION VS KINSEY

Superior Court (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1224, 1236 (in order to sufficiently plead a Cartwright Act claim, "the plaintiff must allege in its complaint certain facts in addition to the elements of the alleged unlawful act so that the defendant can understand the nature of the alleged wrong and discovery is not merely a blind 'fishing expedition' for some unknown wrongful acts.")

  • Hearing

    May 16, 2017

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SPOTLIGHT ON COASTAL CORRUPTION VS KINSEY

Superior Court (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1224, 1236 (in order to sufficiently plead a Cartwright Act claim, "the plaintiff must allege in its complaint certain facts in addition to the elements of the alleged unlawful act so that the defendant can understand the nature of the alleged wrong and discovery is not merely a blind 'fishing expedition' for some unknown wrongful acts.")

  • Hearing

    May 16, 2017

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JOHNSON VS. HUFFMAN

Finally, plaintiff contends that the defendants' acts constituted a restraint of trade in violation of common law and statutory antitrust laws." Id. at 105. The Court held: "It is clear from the stipulated facts and plaintiff's allegations that she does not seek to recover on behalf of the corporation for injury done to the corporation by defendants.

  • Hearing

    Feb 23, 2017

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ELECINIC CORP VS. KSC INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED

A contract in restraint of trade is entirely void where it is indivisible and its central purpose is "tainted with illegality." In Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc., (2000) 24 Cal. App. 4th 83, 124, determining whether a contract is severable, "courts are to look to the various purposes of the contract. If the central purpose of the contract is tainted with illegality, then the contract as a whole cannot be enforced.

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

SPOTLIGHT ON COASTAL CORRUPTION VS KINSEY

Superior Court (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1224, 1236 (in order to sufficiently plead a Cartwright Act claim, "the plaintiff must allege in its complaint certain facts in addition to the elements of the alleged unlawful act so that the defendant can understand the nature of the alleged wrong and discovery is not merely a blind 'fishing expedition' for some unknown wrongful acts.") The FAC sufficiently alleges standing. See opposition memorandum, pp. 2-5.

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2017

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ELECINIC CORP VS. KSC INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED

A contract in restraint of trade is entirely void where it is indivisible and its central purpose is "tainted with illegality." In Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc., (2000) 24 Cal. App. 4th 83, 124, determining whether a contract is severable, "courts are to look to the various purposes of the contract. If the central purpose of the contract is tainted with illegality, then the contract as a whole cannot be enforced.

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

SPOTLIGHT ON COASTAL CORRUPTION VS KINSEY

Superior Court (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1224, 1236 (in order to sufficiently plead a Cartwright Act claim, "the plaintiff must allege in its complaint certain facts in addition to the elements of the alleged unlawful act so that the defendant can understand the nature of the alleged wrong and discovery is not merely a blind 'fishing expedition' for some unknown wrongful acts.") The FAC sufficiently alleges standing. See opposition memorandum, pp. 2-5.

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2017

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ELECINIC CORP VS. KSC INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED

A contract in restraint of trade is entirely void where it is indivisible and its central purpose is "tainted with illegality." In Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc., (2000) 24 Cal. App. 4th 83, 124, determining whether a contract is severable, "courts are to look to the various purposes of the contract. If the central purpose of the contract is tainted with illegality, then the contract as a whole cannot be enforced.

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ENG VS. MISSION HOSPITAL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER

Sixth cause of action for Cartwright Act: “California requires a ‘high degree of particularity’ in the pleading of Cartwright Act violations…The unlawful combination or conspiracy must be alleged with specificity. Freeman v. San Diego Ass'n of Realtors (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 171, 196 (citations omitted). “[G]eneral allegations of a conspiracy unaccompanied by factual allegations of overt acts in furtherance of conspiracy are insufficient to state a group boycott antitrust claim.” Id.

  • Hearing

    Jan 01, 2017

RICHMOND COMPASSIONATE VS. RICHMOND PATIENT'S GROUP

In addition, Plaintiff has cited no legal authority for the proposition that purchasing property constitutes a violation of the Cartwright Act. Defendants also point out that the purchasing of the two properties was done by one of the dispensary companies without involvement of the other companies. The Cartwright Act bans combinations, but single firm monopolization is not cognizable under the Cartwright Act. (Asahi Kasei Pharma Corp. v. CoTherix, Inc. (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1, 11.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2016

FUSION PHARMACEUTICALS LLC VS CDM CORPORATION ET AL

Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on 1/22/16 against defendants for: (1) conspiracy to violate Cartwright Act; (2) interference with prospective economic advantage; (3) unfair competition; (4) misappropriation of trade secrets; (5) breach of fiduciary duty; (6) RICO violation; and (7) declaratory relief. Plaintiff alleges that CDM improperly sought a secret commission from and threatened retaliation of plaintiff’s potential customers.

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2016

Mount Olympus Mortgage Co. v. Anderson

., Inc. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 498, 506 (“By apportioning 65 percent of the fees to defending Cartwright Act claims, the court implicitly found this was predominantly an antitrust action based on the evidence before it and Judge Joseph's characterization of the case. “The court had the discretion to make that determination”). The bottom line is that this Court has not yet had occasion to consider whether apportionment is appropriate in the present case.

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2016

SHAW’S STRUCTURES UNLIMITED, INC. V. FRIENDS OF THE BIG FRESNO FAIR

However, “[i]f the same conduct is alleged to be both an antitrust violation and an ‘unfair’ business act or practice for the same reason – because it unreasonably restrains competition and harms consumers – the determination that the conduct is not an unreasonable restraint of trade necessarily implies that the conduct is not ‘unfair’ toward consumers.” (Chavez v. Whirlpool Corp. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 363, 375.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 29, 2016

AEROVIRONMENT INC VS. GABRIEL TORRES

Issue 1: Plaintiff's 1st cause of action for breach of contract fails because the patent and confidentiality agreement is an unlawful restraint of trade. Ruling: Deny. Defendants have not met their burden on this motion under CCP 437c(p)(2). The burden did not shift to Plaintiffs to establish a triable issue of material fact. Issue 2: Plaintiff's 1st cause of action for breach of contract fails because the patent and confidentiality agreement is unconscionable. Ruling: Deny.

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2016

AEROVIRONMENT INC VS. GABRIEL TORRES

Issue 1: Plaintiff's 1st cause of action for breach of contract fails because the patent and confidentiality agreement is an unlawful restraint of trade. Ruling: Deny. Defendants have not met their burden on this motion under CCP 437c(p)(2). The burden did not shift to Plaintiffs to establish a triable issue of material fact. Issue 2: Plaintiff's 1st cause of action for breach of contract fails because the patent and confidentiality agreement is unconscionable. Ruling: Deny.

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2016

COMPASSIONATE CARE HOME HEALTH AGENCY, LLC V. AMORINO ET AL.

Defendants point to no threats from plaintiffs, no letters from defendants pointing out the deficiencies of plaintiff’s case, no responses from plaintiff evincing a desire for litigation for an improper purpose, no stonewalling in discovery, and no naked attempts at restraint of trade. In short, there is nothing in the record that shows that shows subjective bad faith or improper motive on the part of plaintiff. Accordingly, the motion for attorney’s fees is denied.

  • Hearing

    May 31, 2016

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

AEROVIRONMENT INC VS. GABRIEL TORRES

Cal. 1972) 340 F.Supp. 273, 275, stating: "To require a former employee, who has developed a new idea or concept following the termination of his employment and which is not based upon the employer's secrets or confidential information, to turn over the fruits of his labors to his former employer constitutes, in the opinion of this Court, an unreasonable restraint of trade.")

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2015

AEROVIRONMENT INC VS. GABRIEL TORRES

Cal. 1972) 340 F.Supp. 273, 275, stating: "To require a former employee, who has developed a new idea or concept following the termination of his employment and which is not based upon the employer's secrets or confidential information, to turn over the fruits of his labors to his former employer constitutes, in the opinion of this Court, an unreasonable restraint of trade.")

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2015

JEFF HENDRICKSON ET AL VS SB CERTIFIED FARMERS ETC ET AL

Background: This action was brought under the Cartwright Act asserting claims that plaintiffs were improperly excluded from farmers markets. On July 1, 2013, one day before an opposition was due to defendants’ demurrer to plaintiffs’ second amended complaint, attorney for defendants, Timothy J. Trager, received an email from counsel for plaintiffs, Matt Da Vega.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2013

JEFF HENDRICKSON ET AL VS SB CERTIFIED FARMERS ETC ET AL

“The Cartwright Act [citation], like the Sherman Antitrust Act [citation], was enacted to promote free market competition and to prevent conspiracies or agreements in restraint or monopolization of trade. Restraint of trade may be horizontal or vertical. ‘Contracts, combinations and conspiracies in restraint of trade covered by Section 1 of the Sherman Act are of two types, horizontal or vertical.

  • Hearing

    Apr 16, 2013

COASTAL GROWERS SUPPLY VS. ANACAPA AGRO TECH SUPPLY

A Cartwright Act violation requires "a combination of capital, skill or acts by two or more persons" that seeks to achieve an anticompetitive end. (§ 16720; see Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Section, State Bar, Cal. State Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law (2009) § 2.02[D], p. 40 (hereafter, Cal. Antitrust & Unfair Competition).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 23, 2013

  « first    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.