Cal-Peculiarities: How California Employment Law is Different 2022 Edition

338 | 2022 Cal-Peculiarities ©2022 Seyfarth Shaw LLP  www.seyfarth.com 41 Civ. Code § 3426 et seq. 42 Reeves v. Hanlon, 33 Cal. 4th 1140 (2004). 43 Morlife, Inc. v. Perry , 56 Cal. App. 4th 1514 (1997). 44 AMN Healthcare, Inc. v. Aya Healthcare Servs., Inc. , 28 Cal. App. 5th 923 (2018). 45 Whyte v. Schlage Lock Co. , 101 Cal. App. 4th 1443 (2002). 46 Civ. Code § 3426.2(a); Central Valley Gen. Hosp. v. Smith , 162 Cal. App. 4th 501 (2008). 47 Courtesy Temp. Serv., Inc. v. Camacho , 222 Cal. App. 3d 1278, 1292 (1990) (“cases are legion holding that a former employee’s use of confidential information obtained from his former employer to compete with him and to solicit the business of his former employer’s customers is regarded as unfair competition”); Bancroft-Whitney Co. v. Glen , 64 Cal. 2d 327, 351 (1966) (unfair competition and breach of fiduciary duty claims involving disclosure of employee’s salary to competitor are actionable “even if the information regarding salaries is not deemed to be confidential”). 48 Silvaco Data Sys. v. Intel Corp. , 184 Cal. App. 4th 210 (2010) (citing Civ. Code § 3426.7(b)); K.C. Multimedia, Inc. v. Bank of Am. Tech. & Ops., Inc. , 171 Cal. App. 4th 939 (2009). 49 Amron Int’l Diving Supply, Inc. v. Hydrolinx Diving Commc’n, Inc. , 2011 WL 5025178 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2011). See also Think Village- Kiwi, LLC v. Adobe Sys., Inc. , 2009 WL 902337, at *2 (N.D. Cal. April 1, 2009) (claims for misappropriation and breach of confidence not superseded to extent that plaintiff is pleading in the alternative that the stolen information might be proprietary but not a trade secret); Ali v. Fasteners for Retail, Inc. , 544 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1072 (E.D. Cal. 2008). 50 Amron Int’l Diving Supply, Inc. v. Hydrolinx Diving Commc’n, Inc. , 2011 WL 5025178 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2011) (existence of trade secret is question of fact not subject to motion to dismiss). See also Leatt Corp. v. Innovative Safety Tech., LLC , 2010 WL 2803947, at *6 (S.D. Cal. July 15, 2010) (“Plaintiffs’ unfair competition and tortious interference claims are not preempted by the UTSA to the extent they depend on the misappropriation of otherwise confidential or proprietary, but not trade secret, information as well as upon knowledge of Plaintiffs’ prospective business relationships.”). 51 SunPower Corp. v. Solarcity Corp. , 2012 WL 6160472 (N.D. Cal. 2012). 52 Angelica Textile Servs., Inc. v. Park , 220 Cal. App. 4th 495, 507-09 (2013). 53 See, e.g . , Total Recall Techs. v. Luckey , 2016 WL 19976, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2016) (granting 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss common law claims as preempted, notwithstanding that plaintiff “[b]y strategy … has studiously avoided assertion of any trade secret claims”). 54 18 U.S.C. § 1030 et seq. 55 642 F.3d 781, 785, 787-89 (9th Cir. 2011). The defendant was a former employee of an executive search company who left to start a competitor and then convinced former co-workers—still with the company—to access the company’s confidential database to send him client information. These co-workers had authorized access to the database, but in forwarding the information were violating a company policy against disclosing confidential information. 56 United States v. Nosal , 676 F.3d 854 (2012) (en banc). 57 The court stated: “We remain unpersuaded by the decisions of our sister circuits [the Fifth, Seventh, and Eleventh] that interpret the CFAA broadly to cover violations of corporate computer use restrictions or violations of a duty of loyalty.” 58 Van Buren v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1648, 1652-62 (2021). 59 United States v. Nosal , 844 F.3d 1024, 1028 (9th Cir. 2016). 60 United States v. Christensen , 828 F.3d 763 (9th Cir. 2015). 61 Id . at 789 (emphasis in original). 62 Id . 63 Pen. Code § 502(e)(1).