Non-Disclosure Agreements in California

AWA alleges that these defendants breached certain non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements. (See Cross-Complaint, ¶¶ 76-80.) These allegations are sufficient for pleading purposes because claims for breach of contract may be pleaded in general terms. (See Ochs v. PacifiCare of Cal. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 782, 795.) The cross-defendants may obtain further information regarding Cross-Complainants claims in discovery. (See Khoury v.

It states: “any party shall bring claims before a court of competent jurisdiction arising out of or relating to: (1) the enforcement of restrictive covenant, non- disclosure, or confidentiality agreements; (2) the enforcement of intellectual property rights; (3) prevention of disclosure or use of trade secrets or confidential Company, patient or customer information; (4) injunctive relief with respect to the claims described in subparts (1), (2), or (3) of this paragraph, or to prevent the destruction of documents

Phase I party dealt with the validity of certain confidentiality agreements, the breach of which are at issue in phase II. Notably, Judge Mooney concluded, based [on] what could potentially be determined as independent wrongful conduct, the court declines to declare the non-disclosure/confidentiality provisions void and unenforceable . . . . (July 12, 2022, Minute Order (emphasis added).)

“Requiring employees to sign confidentiality agreements is a reasonable step to ensure secrecy.” (Ibid.)

The Complaint alleges violations of Labor Code sections 232, 232.5, 432.5, 1197.5, 1102.5, 98.6, 96(k), and 1197.5 based on allegations that CED and Royal require[ed] employees to agree in writing g to confidentiality agreements and policies that unlawfully restrain trade by prohibiting employees from speaking with prospective employers about information that is not confidential as a matter of law about their work at Defendants, and about their wages and working conditions. (Compl. ¶ 23.)

Plaintiff’s claim for attorney’s fees succeeds under the Non-Disclosure Agreement (admitted at trial as Ex. 104). The provision provides: “In any legal action between the parties concerning this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys fees and costs." Plaintiff is the prevailing party on the breach of contract claim premised on the Non-Disclosure Agreement.

Nothing in the Non-Disclosure Agreement concerns FEHA or other aspects of Plaintiffs employment. Defendant argues that arbitration of this dispute is required pursuant to the terms of the signed agreement. (Petition, p. 6:34.) Plaintiff argues that this agreement only covers items related to confidentiality and non-disclosure, not to other conditions regarding Plaintiffs employment. (Opposition, p. 2:1222.)

Though he has had notice of CHP’s response, counsel for Zrodlo has not come forward with any reason why he will not sign the Non-Disclosure Agreement or why he should not be required to do so. The purpose of the DMV subpoena is for use of the MVARS video at the DMV hearing. The Non-Disclosure Agreement does not in any way limit use of the video at that hearing. The court finds that CHP is not in contempt and need only produce the MVARS video when counsel for Zrodlo signs the Non-Disclosure Agreement.

Pursuant to the arbitration agreement, both Plaintiff and Defendants agreed that any claim they had against each other “shall be submitted to and determined exclusively by binding arbitration . . .” Ekstrom Dec., Exhibit A at ¶ 2. The Non-Disclosure Agreement (attached as Exhibit A to the Complaint) does not impact that mutual agreement but simply states that Defendant “shall be entitled to an injunction prohibiting [Plaintiff] from [violating the Non-Disclosure agreement.] Complaint, Exhibit A at ¶ I(e).

Plaintiff also seeks attorney’s fees under the attorney’s fees provision in the Non-Disclosure Agreement (admitted at trial as Ex. 104). The provision provides: “In any legal action between the parties concerning this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys fees and costs."

On December 4, 2020, Plaintiff filed the public version of its XC against all cross-defendants, asserting causes of action for: 1) Tortious interference with prospective economic advantage; 2) Breach of contract—NDA; 3) Breach of contract—June 2019 letter agreement; 4) Breach of contract—IRA; 5) Breach of confidentiality agreements by disclosure of complaint; and, 6) Misappropriation of trade secrets.

On February 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed a confidential version of its FAXC against all cross- defendants, asserting causes of action for: 1) Tortious interference with prospective economic advantage; 2) Breach of contract—NDA; 3) Breach of contract—June 2019 letter agreement; 4) Breach of contract—IRA; 5) Breach of confidentiality agreements by disclosure of complaint; and, 6) Misappropriation of trade secrets.

Case No. 21SMCV01394 Hearing Date October 29, 2021 Plaintiffs Motion to File Portions of Complaint Under Seal Plaintiff requests leave to redact certain portions of the complaint (paras. 13-14, 27-32) and file an unredacted copy under seal, arguing those paragraphs are subject to a binding non-disclosure agreement.

Case No. 21SMCV01394 Hearing Date October 29, 2021 Plaintiffs Motion to File Portions of Complaint Under Seal Plaintiff requests leave to redact certain portions of the complaint (paras. 13-14, 27-32) and file an unredacted copy under seal, arguing those paragraphs are subject to a binding non-disclosure agreement.

Additionally, Plaintiff concedes that his complaint “failed to include his . . . causes of action for Breach of Contract and Breach of non-disclosure agreement.” (Opposition at pg. 2:10-2:12.) Here, this concession is dispositive.

Here, the cause of action is brought pursuant to the confidentiality agreements and Mosaic Loan Agreement.

Plaintiff's claim for fees appears to encompass all fees incurred in connection with the litigation, and does not even attempt to identify those fees associated with prosecution of the claim under the Non-Disclosure Agreement and/or the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act.

This action arises out of an alleged violation of a confidentiality/non-disclosure agreement that Lilanna Shakhnazarian (“Defendant”) allegedly entered into when she was hired as Executive Assistant to Mariah Carey (“Plaintiff”). The Complaint alleges that Defendant violated the confidentiality/non-disclosure agreement by secretly filming Plaintiff engaged in personal, intimate activities without her knowledge or permission and displaying the intimate videos to Plaintiff’s friends and co-workers.

With respect to the non-disclosure agreement, the terms of the non-disclosure are not set forth and Plaintiff offers no evidence that the agreement relies on the records in this action being sealed, i.e., that the parties cannot complete their obligations under the agreement while this case remains unsealed. ( Ibid .) Therefore, even if sealing previously-public records would be appropriate under the Cal.

Defendants contend that the non-disclosure agreement has a “limitless” definition of trade secret information, which renders it void and unenforceable in its entirety. Opp. at 16-17. Defendants have equated the non-disclosure agreement with a non-competition agreement. They are distinct: the former may be valid and the latter is invalid. Loral Corp. v. Moyes, (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 268, 276.

In reply, Plaintiff states in her declaration that “I do not recall a discussion of confidentiality or non-disclosure during the Mandatory Settlement Conference with Judge Ongkeko.” (Peluso Decl. ¶ 6.) Based on the foregoing, the Court is not in a position to enforce or enter the settlement agreement. “A settlement agreement is interpreted according to the same principles as any other written agreement.

App.3d 1383, 1390 is distinguishable because in that case the appellant "failed to allege an express non-disclosure term in four earlier complaints and having adopted a position in his prior complaint that there was no such express non-disclosure term, appellant alleged an explicit oral contract of non-disclosure [in his fourth amended complaint.]" There are no such contradictory allegations here.

At the most, the document confirms that on least one occasion, Mageno settled an action pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement. To make her evidentiary point Mageno would need to provide confidentiality agreements for every Unruh lawsuit she has filed. This is not necessary. Her verified response suffices. C. Sanctions Both parties request monetary sanctions in connection with this motion. Those requests are denied.

Trade secret concerns are routinely addressed by protective orders and/or confidentiality agreements and the parties should submit a boilerplate stipulation to the court, forthwith. The parties are cautioned that unreasonable conduct at the deposition may result in motions for which sanctions will likely be imposed.

Defendants have failed to show that the employment agreements and confidentiality agreements contain trade secret information, attorney client communications or otherwise private employment information other than standard contractual language.

As framed by the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants breached the 2017, 2018, and 2021 Confidentiality Agreements by us[ing] the Confidential Information outside of the purposes of the Confidentiality Agreements. (FAC ¶ 66.)

As to Issue #4, this court had previously denied a motion for summary judgment brought by Defendants on the same issue: that the MTCA signed by Defendant Karpel on leaving WG released her from her prior non-disclosure agreement and is a complete defense to this action. The court found that the MCTA was ambiguous, and that parole evidence raised triable issues of fact as to whether the parties intended the MCTA to release Karpel from the previous non- disclosure agreement.

However, viewing the complaint liberally, the allegations that the defendant violated the “non-disclosure” provision (Complaint, ¶¶ 15, 16) are sufficiently pleaded. Although the “unauthorized persons” mentioned in paragraph 16 are undefined, the court can infer these persons refer to Plaintiffs’ other employees, as implied in paragraph 21. Thus, the court will go forward with a prove up hearing on the first cause of action for breach of the non-disclosure provision of the contract.

Per discovery responses, Raposo admittedly never signed a non-compete agreement, had no issue with the non-disclosure agreement, uses contacts from his time at Technologent, has not been prevented from working in his chosen field and freely talks to Technologent employees. Defendants’ Separate Statement (DSS) 12-14. Defendants argue these admissions establish there is no “actual controversy” regarding the non-compete and non-disclosure agreements.

Plaintiffs may establish breach and the threat of future breach of the confidentiality agreements to obtain injunctive relief. Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled the elements of a breach of contract cause of action that does not rely upon the disclosure of the unauthorized recording to LAPD, government entities or in the whistleblower action. See CACI 303; Richman v.

Again, OFW is skeptical a confidentiality agreement actual prevents discovery. In the absence of evidence that the documents are covered by a confidentiality and non-disclosure provision, the Court orders Plaintiff to provided further responses and to produce documents.

Defendants argue disqualification is required because David Lee worked for CALUMS San Diego and signed a non-disclosure agreement. Defts.' Exs. A and B. In March 2014, Attorney Lee was hired to teach a class on paralegal studies. He spent approximately two, one-hour sessions on campus. D. Lee Decl., ¶ 7. Attorney Lee resigned on June 12, 2014. M. Lee Decl., ¶ 9. The non-disclosure agreement pertained to the school's trade secrets, confidential information and proprietary data.

Here, Plaintiff has pled that it has taken reasonable steps to protect the secrecy of the merchant information, namely by requiring confidentiality agreements. (Complaint ¶ 6.)

Cantor’s continued employment with Dorfman was conditioned on her execution of one or more written agreements, including a “Confidentiality, Non-Disclosure and Non-Competition Agreement” (hereafter, the “Confidentiality Agreement”) which Cantor signed on November 30, 2004. The Confidentiality Agreement renders confidential various categories of information, documents, and data, including information pertaining to Dorfman’s patients.

Bradshaw argues that the relevant facts, particularly the existence of the non-disclosure agreement between Safety and Aramsco, were known to Safety a long time ago, even if they were not known to Safety’s counsel. He further argues that amendment of the complaint is not timely, would prejudice Bradshaw, and would be futile because the proposed amended complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. 2. Futility.

The operative pleading does not include any of the challenged emails, or copies of the referenced confidentiality agreements. The averments that the authors are high-ranking officials subject to the company’s confidentiality agreements are supposition, thin at best. In addition, the averments offered do not on their own show illegal conduct. Exposing company salaries and questioning corporate practices is not necessarily illegal.

Defendants’ motion to sever trial regarding enforceability of confidentiality and non-disclosure agreement is denied without prejudice. The severance of trial issues is a matter best determined by the trial judge assigned to hear the trial. This is especially true where trial in this matter is only a few weeks away. For these reasons, the court denies the motion without prejudice to allow defendants to renew PLACER COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT THURSDAY, CIVIL LAW AND MOTION DEPARTMENT 42 THE HONORABLE CHARLES D.

January 14, 2019 Dept. 56 This is an action arising from an alleged breach of a non-disclosure agreement. On March 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint for declaratory relief. Defendant seeks a protective order allowing her not to respond to Plaintiff’s requests for admissions, set two, (request nos. 36-302) and requests for admissions, set three (request nos. 303-536.)

The Complaint does not allege whether the Non-Disclosure Agreement and Intent to Acquire Agreement are oral, written, or implied by conduct (but one assumes they were written). Defendants also argue that there is no allegation that individual Defendant Yeh entered into the Non-Disclosure Agreement and Intent to Acquire Agreement in his individual capacity.

Plaintiff points to the non-disclosure agreement between the parties, which provides that confidential information – including information about customers – received by defendant during its relationship with plaintiff would be kept confidential. (Id., ¶¶ 4-5, Exh. A.) The mere fact that the parties entered into a non-disclosure agreement is not sufficient to warrant sealing the information.

As Plaintiff notes, Defendant did not provide a copy of the Non- Disclosure/Proprietary Information and Invention Agreement; however, as discussed above, Plaintiff bears the burden of proving unconscionability and Plaintiff does not provide a copy of the Non-Disclosure and Invention Agreement either. Absent the Non-Disclosure/Proprietary Information and Inventions Agreement, the Court does not find that the Agreement is substantively unconscionable.

Moreover, the agreement provided: Non-Disclosure. During and after the Employment, Employee will not use, disclose or otherwise permit any person or entity access to any of the Confidential Information other than as required in the performance of Employee’s duties with Employer.

Initially, the Court notes that paragraph h), Governing Law, of the Employee Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement signed by defendant Danielson does not establish consent to this Court’s jurisdiction. This provision is a choice-of-law clause not a forum-selection clause. The Court views this as a case one where the issue is whether it has specific jurisdiction over Danielson.

Plaintiff claims in paragraph 15 that Hankins and Kilde acted in concert to achieve the aforementioned goals (steal Plaintiff’s clients), even though Kilde knew Hankins was employed with SJC and had signed a Confidentiality Agreement and non-Disclosure Agreement.

Greene Trust ("Plaintiff") to offset the settlement agreement for the amount of defendants' delinquent property taxes and for appliances removed from the property by defendants is DENIED. In their settlement agreement, the parties expressly waived Civil Code section 1542. (Declaration of Craig A. Brandt, Exhibit 1, ¶ 7, Exhibit 2, ¶ 1.) Plaintiff argues that the non-disclosure of delinquent property taxes amounts to fraud or resulted in an agreement that was not reached in good faith.

Cross-Complaint On March 26, 2021, Kim filed a Cross-Complaint against Jwa, Liz, and 1 Plus 2, Inc. (“1 Plus 2”) (collectively, “Cross-Defendants”) for (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, (3) fraud and intentional deceit, (4) negligent misrepresentation, (5) fraudulent non-disclosure, (6) negligent non-disclosure, (7) accounting, and (8) unjust enrichment. The allegations of the Cross-Complaint are as follows.

House entered into a settlement agreement memorializing additional terms relevant to that payment]. Plaintiff responded to the subject RFA as follows: A Non-Disclosure agreement was signed pertaining to this matter, I cannot answer this question without violating that agreement. If the Court Orders me to answer this, I will do so. Defendant propounded the Special Interrogatory, No. 12 on Plaintiff on May 6, 2022.

Special Interrogatory No. 14 asks plaintiff to identify any settlement agreement in which he was a party for allegations arising under the American with Disabilities Act and/or the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Plaintiffs objections based on confidentiality contained in his original response are well taken. Settlement agreements typically have confidentiality agreements.

Despite Rodriguez characterization of the 2nd – 5th causes of action as “trade secret claims,” they are actually claims for breach of non-disclosure agreement, breach of employee confidentiality agreement, negligent interference with contractual relations, and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, respectively.

Chui, from whom Sierra obtained the trade secrets, was also subject to a confidentiality and non-disclosure agreement with respect to the source code. (FAC ¶ 29.) These are sufficient allegations that the source code was subject to confidentiality agreements both with LADWP and Chui. The FAC also make detailed allegations of the steps it took to protect its trade secrets. (FAC ¶ 33.) In Epicor Software Corp. v. Alternative Technology Solutions, Inc. (“Epicor”) (C.D. Cal., June 21, 2013, No.

On October 6, 2017, Versa filed a complaint for (1) breach of confidential non-disclosure agreement, (2) breach of employment agreement, (3) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (4) tortious interference with economic relations, (5) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, (6) breach of fiduciary duty, (7) breach of duty of loyalty, (8) misappropriation of trade secrets, and (9) unfair business practices.

Plaintiff demurs to Defendants cause of action for breach of Confidentiality Agreement on grounds that no breach is alleged. Breach is sufficiently alleged at ¶19 of the X-Complaint: Durand has disclosed confidential information and documents of Crown Stone and One Palm to third parties, in direct violation of Durands confidentiality agreements attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference& See X-Complaint, ¶19.

Further, the moving party has not shown that the document at issue, which is an exhibit prepared for this litigation, actually contains confidential information that is protected by unspecified confidentiality agreements in multiple other cases. Moving party can only state that that an order is necessary to prevent "possible disclosure" "in that the total amount of the settlement in each case could be estimated by making an assumption regarding the contingent fee percentages."

There is also tortious conduct that occurred after the Vendor Agreement. For example, it is alleged that defendants misappropriated trade secrets beginning in January 2019 and continuing to the present day. There is also the breach of contract cause of action involving the Vendor Agreement and the oral non-disclosure agreement with Hinojosa, which was allegedly memorialized in the Vendor Agreement.

Defendant’s memorandum of costs shall be taxed in the amount of $3,035, representing the amount of fees paid by Defendant for the discovery referee. 2 While it is true that a party may not withhold documents because of confidentiality, rather than privilege, and Plaintiff did not have to stipulate to a protective order, protective orders or confidentiality agreements are not illegal.

Proof of the alleged defects is necessary to Plaintiffs' non-disclosure claims. In light of Plaintiffs' pursuit of other defendants, a stay of this matter pending completion of arbitration does not avoid the possibility of conflicting rulings. If this tentative ruling is confirmed, the Minute Order will be the final order of the court, and the parties shall not submit any further order on this motion.

For the above reasons, (Jones Lang LaSalle Brokerage, Inc. and Zach Niles) Demurrer to Cross-Complaint of Jeff Anderson (filed on 6-6-18) is SUSTAINED without leave to amend, as to the third (Fraud and Deceit—Non-Disclosure) and fourth (Breach of Fiduciary Duty) causes of action. Cross Defendants are to give notice.

¶ 26 of the 1AC alleges that on February 15, 2012, Plaintiff CMB and Defendant PCCP IRG entered into a Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement (“NDA”). 1AC, ¶¶ 26, 42; Exh. A thereto.

Cuellar argue that the Galgases claim they were unaware of the Covenants, and therefore Eisemann must have breached his duty to disclose to Galgas, and it is entirely foreseeable that the non- disclosure to Galgas would result in non-disclosure to subsequent purchasers like Cuellar. As to the second cause of action for negligent misrepresentation, this cause of action requires a positive assertion, not merely an omission or implied representation. (Lopez v. Nissan N. Am., Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.

finds the matter to be potentially privileged and sensitive and should be sealed pursuant to the following findings under California Rule of Court 2.550(d): (1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the amount of the settlement; (2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed: Unless the terms are sealed, a substantial probability exists that the non-disclosure

In this case, the Arbitration and Confidentiality Agreements are separate, fully-integrated contracts with distinct purposes. The Court finds that the Arbitration Agreement is not substantively unconscionable. ORDER 1. Defendant loanDepot.coms Motion to Compel Arbitration is granted. 2. This action is stayed pending arbitration.

Regarding factor two, Respondent and Jane demonstrate they had an expectation of privacy in the settlement, as they agreed to a mutual non-disclosure clause in the settlement. Regarding factor three, absent a showing that the settlement is directly related to the Portside 503 Trust and the issues and claims in the pending Petition, Petitioner's demand for the terms of the settlement and a copy of the settlement document would constitute a serious invasion of the settling parties' privacy, as individuals.

On May 21, 2020, Defendant Birdwell Retail, LLC filed a demand for arbitration, alleging Plaintiff had violated the non-disclosure agreement by attaching it to her complaint in this action. According to Defendant Birdwell Retail’s opposition, the arbitration was voluntarily dismissed by Defendant on October 16, 2020. Defendant asserts that after the dismissal the arbitrator denied Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees under Civ. Code § 1717, finding there was no prevailing party under that statute.

The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleged five causes of action for (1) breach of loan agreement and promissory note; (2) breach of non-disclosure agreement; (3) breach of employee confidentiality agreement; (4) negligent interference with contractual relations; and (5) negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. On July 7, 2016, Rodriguez filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Plaintiff.

Uber protects its information by requiring its employees to sign a Confidentiality Agreement to protect dissemination of Uber’s information not generally known to the public. Kreutter Declaration, ¶ 8-9. Uber’s third-part vendors are required to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements. Id. ¶ 10. These measures are required to protect Uber’s place in the marketplace. Mr. Kreutter describes additional measures to protect its confidential information. Id., ¶ 14. Mr.

sensitive, proprietary and competitive information and should be sealed pursuant to the following findings under California Rule of Court 2.550(d): (1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the amount of the settlement; (2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the documents are not sealed: Unless the documents are sealed, a substantial probability exists that the non-disclosure

The court finds no support for the argument that the production of records in response to a deposition notice somehow transforms the gravamen of the operative complaint into a challenge on Plaintiffs capacity to determine allegedly fraudulent non-disclosure of information. Production of records on the issue of a deposition therefore in no way leads to a finding of a waiver of any and all medical privacy rights.

Both had access to sensitive and confidential information, and signed confidentiality agreements. Plaintiff also used outside sales agents including defendants Engineered Specification Products, Inc. and its principals Arena and Dennis. Murickan left employment in 2011 and DeChellis in 2013. Both went to work for defendant Pioneer Custom Electrical Products Corp.

Moreover, Plaintiff ignores that the arbitration also includes within its provisions claims that only an employer would bring: breach of trade secret law, claims regarding breaches of confidentiality, violations of non-disclosure/non-solicitation provisions, embezzlement/conversion, and employee theft. This does not present any substantive unconscionability.

The basis of every cause of action is the non-disclosure of the Gauden Exterminating Inspection Report, but it is also the alleged non-disclosure of the substandard condition of the roof and the non-disclosure of the grading and drainage defects.

On June 16, 2017, plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to defense counsel, requesting that the raw data be produced to plaintiff’s counsel and offering to stipulate to a non-disclosure or confidentiality agreement. In a letter dated June 16, 2017, defense counsel responded, stating that a neuropsychologist is permitted to produce the testing results, but is not permitted to produce the raw testing data to a non-licensed psychologist, under Cal. Code of Regulations, Title 16 § 1396.3, and that Dr.

As discussed above, the current allegations do not establish Chase engaged in fraudulent non-disclosure. Moreover, the allegation that the conduct at issue is of public concern because Chase has engaged in unconscionable loan modification practices "as evidenced by class actions across the nation," is impermissibly vague and without legal effect. The demurrer to the Third Cause of Action is sustained without leave to amend.

Defendants Coutrakis, Brust and TCYBLDG demur with respect to the allegations pertaining to the Third Lease Amendment and the License Agreement on the grounds that these defendants are not parties to those agreements. Defendants Coutrakis and Brust also demur to the non-disclosure agreement on the grounds that they were not parties to it.

A, Non-Disclosure Agreement; see Construction Protective Services, Inc. v. TIG Specialty Ins. Co. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 189, 199; McKell v. Washington Mutual, Inc. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1457, 1489). According to the Non-Disclosure Agreement, the Recipient (Mr. Nguyen) agreed not to disclose confidential information of Plaintiff’s without permission.

While Defendant alleges the non-disclosure occurred when the contract was executed with her, Defendant fails to allege when that contract was executed. Defendant’s allegations regarding Plaintiff’s representations being false also fail to identify what the alleged false representations are or who from Plaintiff’s entity made them. Furthermore, there are no facts alleged to support how Defendant was induced to rely on Plaintiff’s non-disclosure and why such reliance was justifiable under the circumstances.

The confidentiality agreement is not part of the arbitration agreement. The arbitration agreement specifically states that breaches of confidentiality and violations of non-disclosure/non-solicitation provisions are arbitrable, as well as other claims brought typically by employers. As to attorney fees, the arbitration may only award fees available under state or federal law. There can be no award of attorney fees in violation of FEHA. Judicial review of arbitration awards is limited.

This conduct breached the non-disclosure agreement." Plaintiff states they have sustained damage due to the breach. Thus, P has properly alleged breach of contract. Thus, the demurrer is overruled as to the 1st Cause of Action.

The Court finds that Defendant/Cross-Complainant is entitled to recovery attorneys’ fees based on the provisions of the subject non-disclosure agreement (Civ. Code §1717) as well as under the applicable provisions of the Labor Code. Moreover, the Court finds the number of hours expended and the hours fees charged by each of the respective billers to be reasonable as reflected in the evidence submitted with the declarations of counsel in support of the instant motion.

) ¶ 54 of the 1AC alleges that Plaintiffs and Defendants Innerline, “ as represented by its officer Yeh entered into [a] valid and enforceable written non-disclosure agreement wherein Innerline and its employees/agents agreed to safeguard and not disclose any confidential information belonging to Caribou.” (Bold emphasis added.) ¶ 54 only alleges that Yeh was acting in a representative capacity in entering into the Non-Disclosure Agreement. The Non-Disclosure Agreement attached as Exh.

The Fifteenth Cause of Action seeks specific performance of the same agreement. The Seventeenth Cause of Action seeks declaratory relief with regard to the same agreement. The Eighteenth Cause of Action alleges that Woolner and LaVelle breached the Stock Purchase Agreement by violating the confidentiality, non-disclosure and Non-Compete provisions in the Agreement. The demurrer to Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of the Non-Compete provision is discussed above.

The second amended complaint alleges that defendants/cross-complainants breached the sales agreement and made intentional or negligent misrepresentations and concealments by stating the property was in perfect condition and failing to disclose defects in the renovations. This is not the same harm for which they are seeking indemnity. The complaint is about the non-disclosure of the defects. The cross-complaint is seeking indemnity for the defects themselves.

Tony Xie signed an employment agreement which included a non-disclosure agreement. NGL alleges that Tony Xie, along with is wife, defendant Julie Xie, formed a sham corporation, defendant Cross-Continents Trans. (“CCTI”), Inc., diverted NGL shipments to CCTI and stole NGL customers. The Complaint alleges the following causes of action: Breach of written contract; Conspiracy; Fraud and deceit; Unfair competition (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200) Defendants demur to the Complaint. The demurrer is opposed.

Even if the Court were to consider the Non-Disclosure and Noncompetition Agreement filed with the reply papers, Plaintiff submits evidence creating a triable issue of fact about whether that agreement was an independent and legitimate reason for her termination. When Morlan hired Plaintiff, he knew she was also working at as a personal trainer at another facility. (AMF 1.)

Actual Causation for Cancellation of Transaction The FAC alleges that Plaintiff presented, and Defendants accepted, a $7,000,000.00 offer which included Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreements on July 13, 2021. (FAC ¶ 22.) This Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement was made known to the Beneficiary Defendants, who were informed that the Buyers, under no terms, wished to be contacted, except through their real estate agent. (FAC ¶ 22.)

While Defendant alleges the non-disclosure occurred when the contract was executed with him, Defendant fails to allege when that contract was executed. Defendant’s allegations regarding Plaintiff’s representations being false also fail to identify what the alleged false representations are or who from Plaintiff’s entity made them. Furthermore, there are no facts alleged to support how Defendant was induced to rely on Plaintiff’s non-disclosure and why such reliance was justifiable under the circumstances.

Plaintiff alleged Defendant interfered in Plaintiffs business relationship with RL Jones with wrongful conduct by breaching the confidentiality and non-disclosure agreement. (Complaint, ¶ 33.) But as noted previously, Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to establish a breach of contract and thus has also failed to establish a wrongful act.

While the arbitration award would be binding as to the issue of attorney's fees owed by Plaintiff for work performed by Defendant, it would not have any effect on Plaintiff's claim for damages due to Defendant's alleged violations of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act and breach of the confidentiality agreements. The general demurrer to the fourth cause of action for declaratory relief is sustained without leave to amend. The arbitration award is binding as to the issue of fees.

Plaintiffs cite to the non-disclosure under Civil Code section 1710.2 as the basis of outrageous conduct.

Gastelum contends that her proposed cross-complaint is related to this action because both Plaintiff’s claims against her and her claims against Plaintiff arise out of the same employment agreement. Plaintiff alleges that Gastelum and the other defendants were ex-employees who conspired to misappropriate Plaintiff’s trade secrets and violated a non-disclosure, non-competition agreement. Gastelum contends that Plaintiff failed to pay commissions and bonuses due to her under the same employment agreement.

Because cross-complainant has alleged a fraud theory concerning non-disclosure, specificity is relaxed, and the parties may conduct discovery to obtain the precise timeline of cross-defendants’ fraud. As a result, the demurrer is OVERRULED. Additionally, the accompanying motion to strike punitive damages is also DENIED. The fraud cause of action supports punitive damages and is adequately pled.

However, this allegation does not show that Plaintiff sued Defendant based on the terms of the lease agreement. ( Ochoa, supra , 89 Cal.App.5th at 1334.) Rather, Plaintiffs claims for fraudulent non-disclosure, negligence, violation of Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq ., and violation of Civil Code §§ 1750, et seq . stem from warranties beyond the lease agreement.

In opposition, Plaintiff attaches a copy of a non-disclosure agreement that Defendant present to Plaintiff for signature on August 18, 2000. (Mauney Decl. Exh. B.) Plaintiffs contend this non-disclosure agreement prevented Lane from disclosing any Proprietary Information (as defined in the agreement) in any manner whatsoever.

The operative complaint alleges four causes of action for (1) intentional misrepresentation, (2) negligent misrepresentation, (3) intentional non-disclosure, and (4) negligent non-disclosure. This hearing is on Defendants motion to compel arbitration. Defendant s argue that a valid arbitration agreement exists which requires arbitration of Plaintiffs claims and the litigation should be dismissed or alternatively, stayed pending completion of the arbitration.

Defendants present what is titled “Assignment of Inventions, Non-Disclosure, and Arbitration Agreement,” which was electronically executed by Plaintiff on August 13, 2019. (Wen Decl. Exh. D.)

Responding Party: No opposition BACKGROUND On February 17, 2022, Plaintiff Shahram Nouri filed a first amended complaint against Defendants Jacob Asadi, Nazanin Asadi, Desiree Zuckerman, Rodeo Realty, Strategic Termite and Pest Control, Alan Meyer, AM Home Inspection Services, WP Real Estate and Home Loans and Walinda Lizeth Palacios asserting causes of action for 1) Rescission Based Upon Fraud; 2) Rescission Based Upon Mistake; 3) Intentional Fraud; 4) Negligent Misrepresentation; 5) Fraud- Non-Disclosure

Ribeiro entered into a Non-Disclosure and Confidential Information Agreement with [Plaintiff].” (Id. ¶ 14.) “[B]ecause of his role as an Account Manager, [Ribeiro] also was provided with a flash drive that contained some of [Plaintiff’s] trade secrets and confidential information ....” (Id. ¶ 15.) “On or about June 9, 2020, Mr. Ribeiro resigned his employment with [Plaintiff]. Upon his separation of employment, under the terms of the Confidentiality Agreement, Mr.

To maintain this information’s confidentiality, Mistras has its employees enter into confidentiality agreements and stores its data securely with access only to managers. By September 2015, Prime hired Peterson, Baird, and Medina as executive managers to compete with Mistras. But Peterson, Baird, and Medina remained employed at Mistras until November 13, 2015, May 20, 2016, and June 28, 2016, respectively.

Dispute are unable to resolve all such matters by mediation within a period of 150 business days, then such dispute, claim or controversy, including the determination of the scope or applicability of this By-Law to mediation shall be determined by arbitration and the identity of the arbitrator or arbitrators and the terms of the appointment thereof and the rules and procedures to be adopted for the arbitration as the persons involved in the Dispute shall agree, but with protection to preserve confidentiality and non-disclosure