MCL Financial Group v. Bak
Filed 5/12/06 MCL Financial Group v. Bak CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| MCL FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., et al., Cross-complainants and Respondents, v. LINDA G. BAK et al., Cross-defendants and Appellants. | G035192 (Super. Ct. No. 04CC11478) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Mary Fingal Erickson, Judge. Request to file supplemental letter brief. Order affirmed. Request denied.
Gordon & Rees, Theresa A. Kristovich and Mollie Burks-Thomas for Cross-defendants and Appellants.
Edgerton & Weaver and Theodore C. Peters for Cross-complainants and Respondents.
* * *
Cross-defendants, seven persons who formerly worked as licensed sales representatives for cross-complainants, sued to recover commissions cross-complainants allegedly failed to pay them. Cross-complainants responded with a verified cross-complaint that included causes of action for breach of contract, misappropriation of proprietary information and trade secrets, and unfair competition, and sought injunctive relief to bar cross-defendants from using their customer information and marketing materials. The trial court issued a preliminary injunction which, in part, prohibited cross-defendants from soliciting the clients and prospects whose names appeared on an exhibit attached to cross-complainant Michael Upton's supplemental declaration.
Cross-defendants appeal from the preliminary injunction order, challenging its no-solicitation prohibition. They contend a list of names does not constitute a trade secret under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Civ. Code, § 3426 et seq.; UTSA), and even if it could so qualify, cross-complainants failed to maintain its secrecy or show they suffered irreparable harm. In addition, cross-defendants contend the injunction is too vague and overbroad. Finding these contentions without merit, we affirm the order granting the injunction.
FACTS
Through his solely-owned business Upton provides â€
