elman, 220 Cal.App.3d 1297, 1302 [271 Cal.Rptr. 579, 582] (1990) .........................................................8 Welch v. City of Oakland, 91 Cal.App.4th 1421, 1429 [111 Cal.Rptr.2d 374,379] (2001) ......................................................18 Whyte v. Schlage Lock Co., 101 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1455-56 [125 Cal.Rptr.2d 277, 287-88] (2002) ..........................................5 Statutes 28 U.S.C. §1332.....................................................................................................................................3 California Civil Code §3246.1 et seq.....................................................................................................5 California Civil Code §3246.7...............................................................................................................6 California Civil Code §3426.6...............................................................................................................7 California Civil Code §3517..........................................................................................................18, 21 California Civil Code §47(b) ...............................................................................................................22 California Code of Civil Procedure §338(d)........................................................................................13

To allow Beaulieu’s claim to proceed under the guise of “unfair competition,” then, would seem to violate yet another long-standing principle of California law that “[n]o one can take advantage of his own wrong.” CAL. CIV. CODE § 3517 (enacted 1872). 8 Beaulieu’s own history of soliciting and hiring away competitors’ employees further undercuts any argument that the resignation of former Beaulieu employees to work at Mohawk constitutes “unfair” competition.

Asher v. Johnson, 26 Cal. App. 2d 403, 417 [1938]: “If the plaintiff cannot open his case without showing that he has broken the law, the court will not assist him, whatever his claim of justice may be upon the defendant." See also Reynolds v. Roll 122 Cal.App.2d 826, 836 (1954) [same]; Cal Civ Code § 3517: “No one can take advantage of his own wrong.” b) Counterclaimants Lack Standing To Bring UCL Claims Because They Did Not Purchase the Product For the reasons set forth in the discussion supporting the 12(b)(1) motion, Counterclaimants lack standing due to their theft of the software.