caltradesecrets.com

Posts Tagged ‘William Q. Hayes’

Southern District Holds That Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Claim Properly Pled Even Where Complaint Lacks Allegation of Use to Plaintiff’s Detriment

In Motion to Dismiss on November 17, 2010 at 7:47 am
Voigtländer camera, Vitoret F, Lanthar 2.8/50,...
Image via Wikipedia

The Southern District of California denied a motion to dismiss a claim for misappropriation of trade secrets even where counter-claimant does not allege plaintiff’s use of the trade secret to counter-claimant’s detriment.  Young v. Fluorotronics, Inc., No. 10cv976-WQH-BGS, 2010 WL 4569996 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2010) (slip op.).

Background

Plaintiff John Young, M.D. filed a complaint against Fluorotronics, Inc. and others relating to his investment in Fluoro-Raman technology, which was purported to be a portable, non-destructive and rapid screening device able to detect problems with food and drugs before they are distributed and detect counterfeit drugs.  Id. *1.  Plainitff alleged that the Private Placement Memorandum and Balance Sheet falsely stated that Fluorotronics was the owner of the “iStar ICCD Intensified CCD Detector Head camera” (“Camera”) and “certain Laser Equipment” (“Laser”). Id. Young for himself and others invested in Fluorotronics, but contrary to the representations of defendants, Fluorotronics allegedly did not own the Camera, but borrowed it from Andor Technology.  Id. **1-2.  When Fluorotronics failed to pay Andor for the camera, Young purchased it from Andor. Id. *2.  Plaintiff brought claims for (1) fraud; (2) negligent misrepresentation; (3) intentional misrepresentation; (4) securities fraud in violation of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5; (5) sale of unregistered securities; (6) breach of fiduciary duty; (7) violation of Section 1507(a) of the California General Corporation Law; and (8) violation of Section 2201 of the California General Corporation Law. Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

Defendant Counterclaiming for Trade Secrets Misappropriation Awarded $72,403 in Damages and $372,094 in Attorneys Fees

In Arbitration, Counterclaims, Judgments, Verdicts on November 3, 2010 at 6:34 am
Wachovia Securities
Image by Steve Rhodes via Flickr

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).

Background

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 »