caltradesecrets.com

Posts Tagged ‘Injunction’

Northern District Denies Preliminary Injunction Where Plaintiff’s Declaration Failed to Show Customer List Was the Result of Substantial Time, Expense and Effort on Part of Plaintiff

In Customer lists, Motion to Dismiss, Preemption, Preliminary Injunction on September 24, 2010 at 11:02 am
Cinderella's Step-Mother and Her Two Lovely Da...
Image by myoldpostcards via Flickr

The Northern District of California denied defendants’ motion to dismiss based on UTSA preemption and denied plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction.  Kovesdy v. Kovesdy, C 10-02012 SBA, 2010 WL 3619826 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2010) (slip op.). Plaintiff Eric Kovesdy (“Eric” or “Plaintiff”) sued his stepmother, Defendant Hedy Kovesdy (“Hedy”) for, inter alia, for misappropriation of trade secrets under California’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“UTSA”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 3426-3426.11, and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). Id. (1) Defendants moved to dismiss; and (2) Plaintiff moved for preliminary injunction.

Background

Peter Kovesdy (“Peter”) opened a professional tax practice known as Humex Income Tax (“Humex”).   Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

Third Circuit Affirms Award of Damages in Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Case and Denial of Recovery on Injunction Bond After Employee’s Partial Success on Appeal

In Customer lists, Employee Mobility, Injunction Bond, Third Circuit on September 20, 2010 at 6:52 am
Seal, United States Court of Appeals for the T...
Image via Wikipedia

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s award of damages against employees on a claim brought by their former employer for, inter alia, misappropriation of trade secrets.  Latuszewski v. Valic Financial Advisors, Inc., No. 08-1511, 2010 WL 3582434 (3rd Cir. Sept. 15, 2010).   Former employer, VALIC Financial Advisors, Inc., bought claims against former employees Gary Latuszewski and James Rogan alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of trade secrets, and tortious interference with contract. Id. *1. Employees appealed arguing that this award was in error and also that the District Court erred in declining to award them damages under VALIC’s injunction bond after this court vacated part of the District Court’s temporary injunction against them. Id. Read the rest of this entry »

Central District Issues Rare Opinion Rejecting Stipulated Protective Order

In Protective Orders on August 23, 2010 at 6:47 am
Tire-Euro-Bad
Image via Wikipedia By CHARLES H. JUNG

Magistrate Judge Fernando M. Olguin issued a rare opinion about a stipulated protective order, rejecting the proposed  stipulated order in Murphy v. Continental Tire North America, Inc., No. CV 09-3004 GHK (FMOx), 2010 WL 3260183 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2010).  The court gave six  reasons for the rejection, including the failure to include a good cause statement (citing Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Elecs., Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing)), lack of specificity in the description of the material to be protected (the parties used conclusory terms such as “confidential technical information”), and duration (“once a case proceeds to trial, all of the information that was designated as confidential and/or kept and maintained pursuant to the terms of a protective order becomes public and will be presumptively available to all members of the public, including the press, unless good cause is shown to the district judge in advance of the trial to proceed otherwise”).   Read the rest of this entry »

Third Circuit Upholds Injunction: Twinkies Will Not Yet Be Crunchy on the Outside and Soft in the Middle

In Fun with Trade Secrets, Trade Secrets News on July 28, 2010 at 10:53 pm
Thomas' English Muffins Truck
Image by AmtrakGuy104 via Flickr

The federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an injunction yesterday blocking an expert on nooks on crannies from jumping to rival Hostess Brands, Inc.  The case is Bimbo Bakeries USA Inc v. Botticella, U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 10-1510.   Michael L. Banks of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP and Joseph Anclien of Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP appeared for oral argument.

By CHARLES H. JUNG

Enhanced by Zemanta