Sample Exemplars - for Common Law Unfair Competition ... Sample Exemplars Library of California Business…

Download Sample Exemplars - for Common Law Unfair Competition ... Sample Exemplars Library of California Business…

Post on 10-Jun-2018




0 download

Embed Size (px)


<ul><li><p>1Cal</p><p>ifor</p><p>nia</p><p> Bu</p><p>sin</p><p>ess </p><p>Lit</p><p>igat</p><p>ion</p><p> For</p><p>ms </p><p>- Sa</p><p>mpl</p><p>e Ex</p><p>empl</p><p>ars</p><p>Sample Exemplars</p></li><li><p>2Cal</p><p>ifor</p><p>nia</p><p> Bu</p><p>sin</p><p>ess </p><p>Lit</p><p>igat</p><p>ion</p><p> For</p><p>ms </p><p>- Sa</p><p>mpl</p><p>e Ex</p><p>empl</p><p>ars</p><p>TABLE OF CONTENTS</p><p>Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-</p><p>Meet the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-</p><p>Motion for Preliminary Injunction - Trade Secrets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-15</p><p>Complaint for Common Law Unfair Competition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16-20</p><p>Complaint for Breach of Covenant Not to Solicit Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21-25</p><p>Expert Witness Retention Letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26-27</p><p>Other Exemplars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28</p></li><li><p>3Cal</p><p>ifor</p><p>nia</p><p> Bu</p><p>sin</p><p>ess </p><p>Lit</p><p>igat</p><p>ion</p><p> For</p><p>ms </p><p>- Sa</p><p>mpl</p><p>e Ex</p><p>empl</p><p>ars</p><p>Library of California Business Litigation Forms is designed as a full library of </p><p>sample documents for your litigation matter. This collection of 125+ sample </p><p>documents is intended to cover most common types of matters litigators face </p><p>when representing either a plaintiff or a defendant. </p><p>Forms are included for general claims such as breach of contract, often-pleaded </p><p>common counts, declaratory relief, promissory estoppel and fraud, as well as </p><p>specific claims for common business torts and statutory violations. You will </p><p>find documents regarding theft of trade secrets, interference with economic </p><p>advantage, trademark and copyright infringement, breach of confidence, </p><p>breach of fiduciary duty, insurance bad faith, securities fraud and shareholder </p><p>derivative suits, corporate dissolution, unfair business practices, and antitrust </p><p>violations. Also included is a compendium of affirmative defenses frequently </p><p>raised in business litigation.</p><p>In addition to pleadings, the collection includes common collateral documents. </p><p>These include letters demanding preservation of evidence, a joint defense </p><p>agreement, an expert retention agreement, stipulated protective orders, a </p><p>temporary restraining order, injunctions, offers of compromise, and a form of </p><p>judgment. Also included are basic discovery exemplars, such as deposition </p><p>notices, interrogatory requests, document requests, requests for admissions, </p><p>expert disclosures, and exemplar declarations to seek discovery beyond the </p><p>statutory limits, and general objections to discovery requests. Each document </p><p>includes all of the necessary elements to state a cause of action, a claim for </p><p>relief, or an affirmative defense. Often included are specific facts, giving form </p><p>to the types of background allegations that could be included, and serving as a </p><p>checklist of the types of allegations that can support a claim or defense.</p><p>INTRODUCTION</p></li><li><p>4Cal</p><p>ifor</p><p>nia</p><p> Bu</p><p>sin</p><p>ess </p><p>Lit</p><p>igat</p><p>ion</p><p> For</p><p>ms </p><p>- Sa</p><p>mpl</p><p>e Ex</p><p>empl</p><p>ars</p><p>Willian n. HebertWilliam N. Hebert is a partner in the San Francisco office of Calvo Fisher &amp; Jacob. Mr. </p><p>Hebert represents clients in business litigation, including class action defense, business </p><p>torts (such as antitrust, trade secret litigation, and interference with economic advantage), </p><p>patent and trademark infringement, false advertising and Californias Unfair Competition </p><p>Law.</p><p>He has tried a dozen cases in state and federal court, and has litigated numerous </p><p>arbitrations, including hearings before the National Association of Securities Dealers and </p><p>the American Arbitration Association. Mr. Hebert was named by the Daily Journal as one </p><p>of the Top 100 Lawyers in California for 2011.</p><p>Mr. Hebert was President of the State Bar of California for the 2010/2011 term. He was a </p><p>member of the State Bar Board of Governors, 2007-2010, serving as Vice President for 2009-</p><p>2010. He is also a member of the Board of Directors of the San Francisco Legal Aid Society </p><p>and the Board of Directors of the Public Interest Law Project, as well as Chair of the Board </p><p>of Trustees of Prospect Sierra School. Mr. Hebert is a panel mediator for the U.S. District </p><p>Court for the Northern District of California.</p><p>He received his J.D. for the University of California, Boalt Hall School of Law in 1988 and </p><p>an A.B. from Stanford University in 1983 (with distinction).</p><p>Mr. Hebert is the author of Library of California Business Litigation Forms (ALM Media </p><p>Properties, LLC 2013). He is a contributing author of California Antitrust and Unfair </p><p>Competition Law (Lexis Nexis, 2010), published by the California State Bar Section on </p><p>Antitrust and Unfair Competition. He contributed chapters on the subjects of expert </p><p>witnesses, injunctions, treble damages and void contracts.</p><p>MEET THE AUTHOR</p></li><li><p>5Cal</p><p>ifor</p><p>nia</p><p> Bu</p><p>sin</p><p>ess </p><p>Lit</p><p>igat</p><p>ion</p><p> For</p><p>ms </p><p>- Sa</p><p>mpl</p><p>e Ex</p><p>empl</p><p>ars</p><p>EX PARTE APPLICATION TRO AND OSC PRELIM. INJUNCTION </p><p>1 </p><p>2 </p><p>3 </p><p>4 </p><p>5 </p><p>6 </p><p>7 </p><p>8 </p><p>9 </p><p>10 </p><p>11 </p><p>12 </p><p>13 </p><p>14 </p><p>15 </p><p>16 </p><p>17 </p><p>18 </p><p>19 </p><p>20 </p><p>21 </p><p>22 </p><p>23 </p><p>24 </p><p>25 </p><p>26 </p><p>27 </p><p>28 </p><p> [ATTORNEY NAME] (ATTORNEY STATE BAR NUMBER) [ATTORNEY EMAIL ADDRESS] [LAW FIRM NAME] [LAW FIRM STREET ADDRESS] [LAW FIRM CITY/STATE/ZIP CODE] [LAW FIRM TELEPHONE NUMBER] [LAW FIRM FAX NUMBER] Attorneys for [PLAINTIFF/DEFENDANT] [CLIENTS NAME] </p><p>SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA </p><p>IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF [COUNTY NAME] </p><p>UNLIMITED JURISDICTION </p><p> [PLAINTIFFS NAME], a California corporation, Plaintiff, v. [DEFENDANT(S) NAME(S)]; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Defendants. </p><p> Case No. PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF Date: Time: Dept: </p></li><li><p>6Cal</p><p>ifor</p><p>nia</p><p> Bu</p><p>sin</p><p>ess </p><p>Lit</p><p>igat</p><p>ion</p><p> For</p><p>ms </p><p>- Sa</p><p>mpl</p><p>e Ex</p><p>empl</p><p>ars</p><p>1 EX PARTE APP. TRO/OSC AND MPA SUPP. </p><p>1 </p><p>2 </p><p>3 </p><p>4 </p><p>5 </p><p>6 </p><p>7 </p><p>8 </p><p>9 </p><p>10 </p><p>11 </p><p>12 </p><p>13 </p><p>14 </p><p>15 </p><p>16 </p><p>17 </p><p>18 </p><p>19 </p><p>20 </p><p>21 </p><p>22 </p><p>23 </p><p>24 </p><p>25 </p><p>26 </p><p>27 </p><p>28 </p><p>I. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE EX PARTE RULES OF THE CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT </p><p>Before 10:00 a.m. on [DATE], counsel for Plaintiff notified defendants that Plaintiff </p><p>would be appearing ex parte at _____ a.m./p.m. on [DATE], in this Court to seek the relief being </p><p>sought in this application. (Declaration of [ATTORNEY NAME] Supp. of Pl. Ex Parte App. for </p><p>a Temp. Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Why Prelim. Inj. Should Not Issue </p><p>(NAME Decl.) *, Exh. A.) </p><p>II. INTRODUCTION </p><p>Plaintiff trusted its former employee, software engineer Defendant [NAME] </p><p>(Defendant) with its confidential and proprietary trade secret information. That trust was </p><p>misplaced. [DESCRIBE FACTS REGARDING MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE </p><p>SECRETS, e.g., A few months before Defendant resigned, he started a competing company, </p><p>Defendant [COMPANY]. He then began to download all of Plaintiffs source code and </p><p>transferred it through an unauthorized FTP (File Transfer Protocol) system or copied it onto a </p><p>thumb drive, he kept thumb drives that contained Plaintiffs source code rather than returning </p><p>them when he left the company, and he copied its customer list. Less than [NUMBER] months </p><p>after Defendant left Plaintiff, Defendants were marketing a competing [PRODUCT] to Plaintiffs </p><p>customers that one of them has reported is identical to Plaintiffs [PRODUCT]. Defendants </p><p>[PRODUCT] is the result of blatant copying: Plaintiff invested [NUMBER] years and the full-</p><p>time work of [NUMBER] [DESCRIBE TITLE OR TYPE OF WORKERS] to create its product, </p><p>but Defendants developed their identical product in a few weeks. </p><p>Plaintiff is entitled to a temporary restraining order and an order to show cause why a </p><p>preliminary injunction should not issue to prevent Defendants from continuing to use Plaintiffs </p><p>confidential, proprietary and trade secret information. Unless this Court acts immediately to </p><p>restrain Defendants, they will continue to use and disclose Plaintiffs valuable trade secrets and </p><p>confidential business information. </p><p>III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND </p><p>[STATE BACKGROUND FACTS HERE; DESCRIPTION OF TRADE SECRETS; </p></li><li><p>7Cal</p><p>ifor</p><p>nia</p><p> Bu</p><p>sin</p><p>ess </p><p>Lit</p><p>igat</p><p>ion</p><p> For</p><p>ms </p><p>- Sa</p><p>mpl</p><p>e Ex</p><p>empl</p><p>ars</p><p>2 EX PARTE APP. TRO/OSC AND MPA SUPP. </p><p>1 </p><p>2 </p><p>3 </p><p>4 </p><p>5 </p><p>6 </p><p>7 </p><p>8 </p><p>9 </p><p>10 </p><p>11 </p><p>12 </p><p>13 </p><p>14 </p><p>15 </p><p>16 </p><p>17 </p><p>18 </p><p>19 </p><p>20 </p><p>21 </p><p>22 </p><p>23 </p><p>24 </p><p>25 </p><p>26 </p><p>27 </p><p>28 </p><p>REASONABLE EFFORTS TO MAINTAIN SECRECY OF INFORMATION; HOW TRADE </p><p>SECRETS WERE MISAPPROPRIATED/DISCLOSED/USED WITHOUT </p><p>AUTHORIZATION; NEED FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF] </p><p>IV. ARGUMENT </p><p>A. Plaintiff is Entitled to a Preliminary Injunction As it is Likely to Succeed On Its Claim for Breach of Contract and Specific Performance of the Non-Disclosure Agreement. </p><p>A cause of action for breach of contract requires pleading (1) the contract; (2) plaintiffs </p><p>performance or excuse for non-performance; (3) defendants breach; and (4) damage to plaintiff. </p><p>McKell v. Washington Mutual, 142 Cal. App. 4th 1457, 1489 (2006). Specific performance of a </p><p>contract may be decreed whenever: (1) its terms are sufficiently definite, (2) consideration is </p><p>adequate, (3) there is substantial similarity of the requested performance to the contractual terms, </p><p>(4) there is mutuality of remedies, and (5) plaintiff's legal remedy is inadequate. Union Oil Co. of </p><p>California v. Greka Energy Corp., 165 Cal. App. 4th 129, 134 (2008). </p><p>Plaintiff first cause of action is for breach of contract and specific performance of </p><p>Defendants Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA), pursuant to which he agreed to keep </p><p>confidential Plaintiffs Confidential Information, as is specifically defined in the NDA, and </p><p>agreed to return all Confidential Information upon request. (__________ Decl. Exh. B, __, </p><p>__.) The parties to the NDA acknowledged that a breach of the provisions of Paragraphs </p><p>[NUMBERS] of this agreement would cause the other party to suffer irreparable damage and </p><p>could not be adequately remedied by an action of law. Accordingly, the parties agree that either </p><p>party shall have the right to seek specific performance of the provisions of Paragraph </p><p>[NUMBER] to enjoin a breach or attempted breach of the provisions thereof, such right being in </p><p>addition to all other rights and remedies that are available to the parties at law, in equity, or </p><p>otherwise. (Id. __.) </p><p>Plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of Defendants obligations under this </p><p>contract: it is definite, consideration was adequate, the requested performance is identical to the </p></li><li><p>8Cal</p><p>ifor</p><p>nia</p><p> Bu</p><p>sin</p><p>ess </p><p>Lit</p><p>igat</p><p>ion</p><p> For</p><p>ms </p><p>- Sa</p><p>mpl</p><p>e Ex</p><p>empl</p><p>ars</p><p>3 EX PARTE APP. TRO/OSC AND MPA SUPP. </p><p>1 </p><p>2 </p><p>3 </p><p>4 </p><p>5 </p><p>6 </p><p>7 </p><p>8 </p><p>9 </p><p>10 </p><p>11 </p><p>12 </p><p>13 </p><p>14 </p><p>15 </p><p>16 </p><p>17 </p><p>18 </p><p>19 </p><p>20 </p><p>21 </p><p>22 </p><p>23 </p><p>24 </p><p>25 </p><p>26 </p><p>27 </p><p>28 </p><p>contract terms, the remedies are mutual, and Plaintiffs legal remedy is inadequate. Union Oil, </p><p>165 Cal. App. 4th at 134. Pending specific performance, this Court can issue a preliminary </p><p>injunction to prevent continued breaches of the contract. A contract that can be specifically </p><p>enforced can also be preliminarily enforced by means of injunctive relief. Southern Christian </p><p>Leadership Conference v. Al Malaikah Auditorium Co., 230 Cal. App. 3d 207, 224 (1991). </p><p>Plaintiff is likely to prevail on its first cause; therefore, the Court should enter an injunction to </p><p>prevent further breaches of Defendants NDA. </p><p>B. Plaintiff is Entitled to a Preliminary Injunction Because It is Likely to Succeed On Its Claim for Violation of California Penal Code 502. </p><p>California Penal Code section 502 establishes civil liability for anyone who knowingly </p><p>accesses and without permission takes, copies, or makes use of any data from a computer, </p><p>computer system, or computer network, or takes or copies any supporting documentation, </p><p>whether existing or residing internal or external to an computer, computer system, or computer </p><p>network. Cal. Penal Code 502(c)(2) &amp; (e)(1); see Iconix, Inc. v. Tokuda 457 F. Supp. 2d 969 </p><p>(N.D. Cal. 2006) (finding that plaintiff was likely to succeed on his unfair competition law claim </p><p>that defendants violated Penal Code Section 502 by deleting files from plaintiffs computer </p><p>without plaintiffs permission in order to destroy incriminating evidence and by having </p><p>plaintiffs employee upload a source code belong to plaintiff). Defendants have violated </p><p>Section 502 by using, without permission Plaintiffs computer systems, uploading and copying </p><p>files, and deleting files to cover their tracks. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to an injunction </p><p>because it will prevail under this claim. </p><p>C. Plaintiff is Likely to Succeed on its Claims for Breach of the Duty of Loyalty and Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty. </p><p>In order to prevail on a claim for breach of the duty of loyalty, Plaintiff must </p><p>demonstrate: (1) the existence of a relationship giving rise to a duty of loyalty, (2) one or more </p><p>breaches of that duty, and (3) damage proximately caused by that breach. Huong Que, Inc. v. </p><p>Luu, 150 Cal. App. 4th 400, 410 (2007). In an employment relationship, [t]he duty of loyalty </p><p>arises not from a contract but from the relationship of principal and agent. Id. at 411. Where </p></li><li><p>9Cal</p><p>ifor</p><p>nia</p><p> Bu</p><p>sin</p><p>ess </p><p>Lit</p><p>igat</p><p>ion</p><p> For</p><p>ms </p><p>- Sa</p><p>mpl</p><p>e Ex</p><p>empl</p><p>ars</p><p>4 EX PARTE APP. TRO/OSC AND MPA SUPP. </p><p>1 </p><p>2 </p><p>3 </p><p>4 </p><p>5 </p><p>6 </p><p>7 </p><p>8 </p><p>9 </p><p>10 </p><p>11 </p><p>12 </p><p>13 </p><p>14 </p><p>15 </p><p>16 </p><p>17 </p><p>18 </p><p>19 </p><p>20 </p><p>21 </p><p>22 </p><p>23 </p><p>24 </p><p>25 </p><p>26 </p><p>27 </p><p>28 </p><p>such a relationship arises, the agent assumes a fiduciary duty to act loyally for the principal's </p><p>benefit in all matters connected with the agency relationship. Id. The duty of loyalty is breached </p><p>when an employee, during his employment, competes with his employer. Id. at 416; see also </p><p>Stokes v. Dole Nut Co., 41 Cal. App. 4th 285, 295 (1995) ([D]uring the term of employment, an </p><p>employer is entitled to its employees' undivided loyalty.... The duty of loyalty is breached ... </p><p>when the employee takes action which is inimical to the best interests of the employer. </p><p>(citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); GAB Bus. Servs. v. Lindsey &amp; Newsom Claim </p><p>Servs., Inc., 83 Cal. App. 4th 409, ___ (2000). </p><p>Under California law, a defendant may be liable for aiding and abetting in the </p><p>commission of an intentional tort if he (a) knows the other's conduct constitutes a breach of </p><p>duty and gives substantial assistance or encouragement to the other to so act or (b) gives </p><p>substantial assistance to the other in accomplishing a tortious result and the person's own </p><p>conduct, separately considered, constitutes a breach of duty to the third person. Saunders v. Sup. </p><p>Ct., 27 Cal. App. 4th 832, 846 (1994). A defendant may be found liable </p><p>for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty even though the defendant owes no </p><p>independent du...</p></li></ul>