In Arbitration, Counterclaims, Judgments, Verdicts on November 3, 2010 at 6:34 am
Plaintiffs in a wrongful termination suit were denied any award after an arbitration, but one plaintiff was ordered to pay $72,403 in compensatory damages to defendant on, inter alia, misappropriation of trade secret counterclaims. Holland v. Wachovia Securities LLC, 2009 WL 7035871, 44 Trials Digest 13th 12 (S.D. Cal. Award May 18, 2009).
According to court records: Plaintiff William Holland filed his Statement of Claim alleging that defendants Wachovia Securities LLC and Eugene P. Ingargiola, who was the manager of the Wachovia office where William was employed, had damaged him when they wrongfully terminated his employment on November 18, 2004. Id. Among other things, plaintiff claimed that defendants had terminated him on account of his age and in a desire to re-assign his accounts to younger account executives whose percentage share in the revenues generated by those accounts would be less than plaintiff’s share had been. Id.
Holland’s son and co-worker, Michael W. Holland, also filed his own Statement of Claim in a separate proceeding, alleging that defendants had damaged him when his employment with Wachovia terminated very shortly after his father’s. Id.
Wachovia counterclaimed, alleging, inter alia, that William Holland and Michael W. Holland violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and misappropriated trade secrets. Id. Read the rest of this entry »
In Judgments, Verdicts on November 2, 2010 at 11:41 am
After a bench trial in San Francisco Superior Court, plaintiffs in a trade secrets case recovered judgment on the merits against certain defendants in the amount of $921,469, plus pre-judgment interest in the amount of $301,664, and punitive damages of $275,000. UltraEx Inc. vs. Express It Delivery Services Inc., Case No., CGC-05-447942, 2010 WL 4260535, 44 Trials Digest 13th 5 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Verdict Date: April 1, 2010).
According to court records, on April 29, 1998, plaintiff UltraEx Inc. merged with two other corporations, Express It Courier Services Inc. (“Old Express It”) and 800 Courier Inc. Id. *1. Plaintiff was the surviving corporation in this merger, but prior to the merger, Old Express It and 800 Courier had each been actively conducting a package delivery business in California. Id. Defendant Express It Delivery Services Inc. (“New Express It”) was a California corporation formed in November 2004. Id. Read the rest of this entry »
In Verdicts on September 7, 2010 at 4:28 pm
A Los Angeles Superior Court jury awarded plaintiff an aggregate $157,000 verdict in Hong vs. Life University, an employment and trade secrets case. 37 Trials Digest 13th 12, 2010 WL 3454121 (Verdict Date June 28, 2010).
Plaintiff allegedly entered into an employment contract with defendant university for a five-year term to begin October 1, 2006. Plaintiff alleged that defendants breached the agreement by firing him on June 15, 2007. Read the rest of this entry »
In Verdicts on September 2, 2010 at 8:11 am
A former employer was awarded $3,135 in compensatory damages after a Los Angeles Superior Court bench trial related to former sales employees’ alleged misappropriation of trade secrets . LifeSource Water Systems Inc. vs. Stansfield, GC041297, 36 Trials Digest 13th 12 (Judgment Date May 4, 2009). Plaintiff filed suit for breach of written contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition, and interference with prospective economic advantage. According to Trials Digest, the court issued a permanent injunction, ordered defendants to deliver all of plaintiff’s property in their possession, ordered Stansfield to pay $1,940 compensatory damages and ordered Kline to pay $1,195 compensatory damages. Read the rest of this entry »
In Verdicts on September 2, 2010 at 7:51 am
Plaintiff in a trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement case won a jury verdict for $11,909,797. I-Flow Corporation vs. Apex Medical Technologies Inc., No. 07CV01200(DMS), 36 Trials Digest 13th 16 (S.D. Cal. Verdict Date Oct. 28, 2009). As reported by Trials Digest, plaintiff’s award included $1,484,966 damages from defendant Apex to plaintiff for misappropriation of plaintiff’s trade secrets; and$1,484,966 damages from defendant McGlothlin to plaintiff for misappropriation of plaintiff’s trade secrets. Read the rest of this entry »
In Verdicts on August 17, 2010 at 3:58 am
In Quantum Cooking Concepts v. LV Associates, Case No. BC379011, plaintiff was awarded $1,000,000 after a 5-day jury trial in Los Angeles Superior Court. See 2 Trials Digest 13th 8, 2010 WL 3210865. Plaintiff sued a competitor for misappropriation of trade secrets and fraud.
Judge and Attorneys
The judge was Hon. Rolf M. Treu.
Plaintiffs were represented by Nam C. Nguyen and Luan K. Phan of the Phan Law Group in Los Angeles.
Defendant was represented by Howard J. Fox of the Law Offices of Jack L. Chegwidden in Encino.
By CHARLES H. JUNG
In Verdicts on August 6, 2010 at 8:23 am
A San Francisco Superior Court jury granted $1.525 million in punitive damages Friday to Technology Information Group, adding to the $9.36 million in compensatory damages it awarded to the company a day earlier in a trade secrets dispute with its former employees and a competitor. As reported in law360.com, the “jury found San Francisco-based FusionStorm, three of its executive officers and three former TIG employees who were hired by FusionStorm liable for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of loyalty, misappropriation of trade secrets and other causes of action . . . .”
The complaint alleged that the improper conduct began while the former employees still worked at TIG’s Tampa, Fla., offices. The former employees were accused of trying to lure away other of TIG’s employees and customers to FusionStorm, which was then setting up in the area. TIG filed its lawsuit in 2007 and won a temporary restraining order that enjoined FusionStorm from soliciting additional TIG employees and from conducting business with certain customers, MoFo said.
The jury verdict comes after a five-week trial. FusionStorm was represented by Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP. TIG was represented by Morrison & Foerster LLP. The docket may be viewed here.
By CHARLES H. JUNG