§Why CasetextPricing

Opposition To Plaintiffs Application For Tro

Opposition

11 Cited authorities

  1. Morlife, Inc. v. Perry

    56 Cal.App.4th 1514 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 170 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that information derived from business cards and an employee's memory constituted a "trade secret" because it allowed a competitor to direct sales efforts to customers who had already shown a propensity to use certain products and services

  2. Flir Systems, Inc. v. Parrish

    174 Cal.App.4th 1270 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 104 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Affirming finding claim was objectively specious where evidence showed "no 'actual damages,' misappropriation, or threatened misappropriation of trade secrets, and no threat of imminent harm."

  3. Dowell v. Biosense Webster

    179 Cal.App.4th 564 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 66 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding the customer non-solicitation provision void

  4. ABBA Rubber Co. v. Seaquist

    235 Cal.App.3d 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 98 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a trade secret is protectable if it has not yet been ascertained by others

  5. San Jose Construction, Inc. v. S.B.C.C., Inc.

    155 Cal.App.4th 1528 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 58 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding it was a question of fact whether a particular confidentiality agreement constituted a reasonable effort to maintain the secrecy of information that the employer disclosed to the employee

  6. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Ran

    67 F. Supp. 2d 764 (E.D. Mich. 1999)   Cited 31 times
    Finding that brokerage firm's list of client names, phone numbers, and other confidential information was entitled to protection as a trade secret under MUTSA

  7. Aetna Bldg. Maintenance Co. v. West

    39 Cal.2d 198 (Cal. 1952)   Cited 96 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In AetnaBldg. Maintenance Co. v. West, supra, 39 Cal.2d 198, 246 P.2d 11, the court found on the evidence before it that the employer's procedures for estimating prices on new contracts for janitorial service and building maintenance were not trade secrets or business confidences.

  8. United Farm Workers of America v. Superior Court

    14 Cal.3d 902 (Cal. 1975)   Cited 39 times
    In United Farm Workers of America v. Superior Court (1975) 14 Cal.3d 902, 913 [ 122 Cal.Rptr. 877, 537 P.2d 1237] this court held that in First Amendment cases, the party seeking the restraining order must make a reasonable effort in good faith to give notice, in either formal or informal fashion, to either the defendant or his counsel.

  9. Klamath-Orleans Lumber, Inc. v. Miller

    87 Cal.App.3d 458 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978)   Cited 21 times
    In Klamath-Orleans, the plaintiff was awarded damages and the court upheld a permanent injunction restraining two former employees from soliciting their former employer’s customers.

  10. People v. Porter

    64 Cal.App. 4 (Cal. Ct. App. 1923)   Cited 3 times

    Crim. No. 1134. October 1, 1923. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco and from an order denying a new trial. Louis H. Ward, Judge. Affirmed. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Ernest B. D. Spagnoli for Appellant Porter. Edward D. Mabson for Appellant Young. U.S. Webb, Attorney-General, and John H. Riordan, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent. STURTEVANT, J. — The appellants were informed against by the district attorney in a joint

  11. Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 23,076 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Providing for service via CM/ECF Systems