Homepage

Homepage2020-02-10T19:42:13+00:00
1103, 2021

Just What the Doctor Ordered: Second District Permits Trade Secret Protection for Physician Productivity Data

March 11th, 2021|Categories: Litigation Articles|

At the end of 2020, California’s Second District Court of Appeal decided Coast Hematology-Oncology Associates Medical Group, Inc. v. Long Beach Memorial Medical Center,[i] a case involving rival medical groups and allegations of trade secret misappropriation, interference with prospective economic advantage, interference with a contract, and unfair competition.

Of Continue Reading

1103, 2021

Whitewater West Industries, Ltd. v. Alleshouse: California Law Torpedoes Post-Employment Invention Assignment Provisions

March 11th, 2021|Categories: Litigation Articles|

California employers beware. You can use a properly drafted contract to prohibit former employees from using your confidential information after they leave your business. But, if your contract requires a former employee to hand over to you his or her good ideas related to your business conceived after leaving your Continue Reading

March 2021

Monthly Litigation Law Tip

Because of COVID, many California statutes of limitations were tolled for at least several weeks in 2020, a fact that should be taken into account when seeking to initiate or defend against new litigation.

607, 2020

Buckles, Clasps, and Other New Tools for Trademark Enforcement

July 6th, 2020|Categories: Litigation Articles|

Business that use trademarks or service marks now have a more powerful remedy against others who use those marks, or confusingly similar ones, without consent. A new United States Supreme Court decision, issued April 23, 2020, removes the requirement of proving willful infringement to recover lost profits. Plaintiffs in trademark Continue Reading

105, 2020

Kim v. Reins: Another PAGA Wrench Thrown Into the Settlement Finish Line for Employers

May 1st, 2020|Categories: Litigation Articles|

On March 12, 2020, the California Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated decision in Kim v. Reins. The Court held that an employee does not lose standing to pursue a claim under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) if the employee settles and dismisses his or her individual Continue Reading

1202, 2020

Show Me the Money! –Ninth Circuit Clarifies CAFA Standards

February 12th, 2020|Categories: Litigation Articles|Tags: , , , , , , |

In Arias v. Residence Inn by Marriott, the Ninth Circuit clarified and reiterated standards related to the removal of an action to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) — namely, what a defendant must show to meet the CAFA amount in controversy requirement and how a district Continue Reading