|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
State Employment Law Articles
Report Link Brescia v. Angelin, the Latest Reported Case Regarding CCP 2019.210 Trade Secret Statements: A More Employer-Friendly Standard.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - April 22, 2009 One issue in trade secret litigation is whether a plaintiff has adequately identified the trade secrets it alleges were misappropriated. In California, a plaintiff alleging misappropriation of trade secrets must identify the allegedly misappropriated trade secrets with "reasonable particularity" before commencing discovery concerning the trade secrets claim.1 As a result, defendants often challenge a plaintiff's so-called California Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.210 statement to force the plaintiff to better define the scope of the allegedly misappropriated trade secrets. Report Link California Appellate Court Holds State Uniform Trade Secrets Act Preempts State Common Law Claims.Jackson Lewis LLP - March 27, 2009 The California Court of Appeal has held that the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”) preempts common law claims and even statutory unfair competition claims based on the same nucleus of facts as a trade secrets misappropriation claim. Report Link Effective Trade Secret Protection: Speed is of the Essence.Jackson Lewis LLP - June 17, 2008 A recent ruling by the California Court of Appeal emphasizes the need for employers to act quickly when claiming misappropriation of trade secrets. Report Link California's Anti-SLAPP Law Protects Letter to Employer's Customers About Contemplated Trade Secrets Litigation.Jackson Lewis LLP - May 12, 2008 The California Court of Appeal has ruled that an employer's attorney's letter to the employer's customers concerning potential trade secrets litigation was protected speech under California's anti-SLAPP ("strategic lawsuit against public participation") law, Cal. Civ. Code Section 425.16. Neville v. Chudacoff, No. B198253 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 12, 2008). The court held that the letter directly related to the employer's claims and that, when it was written, the employer seriously and in good faith was contemplating litigation against the employee. Thus, the court affirmed the trial court's order dismissing the employee's claim against the employer's attorney.
|
Count and Sub-TopicsArticles Found: 4NO SUBTOPICSEmployment Law Seminars
2010 Ushers In Many Important Changes to Workplace Laws
Columbia
November 20, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsANNUAL EMPLOYMENT LAW UPDATESacramento
December 1, 2009 Shaw ValenzaMonthly Webinar: Preventing Workplace Harassment (California and National)Webinar
December 1, 2009 LittlerCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late to ComplySan Francisco
December 1, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsThe Constangy Management Training Center "Employment Law 201"Tampa
December 2, 2009 ConstangyCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late to ComplyOntario
December 2, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsAudio Conference: Employee Caregivers Dealing With DementiaAudio Conference
December 2, 2009 Young ConawayClients, Adversaries and Witnesses: The Ethics of Communication in a Fast-Paced Legal World Web CastWebinar
December 4, 2009 Ford & HarrisonTaking Executive Compensation Hostage; What To DoWebinar
December 8, 2009 Baker HostetlerPREVENTING HARASSMENT AND OTHER EEO ISSUES AT WORK: IT’S ALL ABOUT RESPECT (AB 1825 COMPLIANCE)Sacramento
December 9, 2009 Shaw Valenza |
|
| ||
|
Terms of Use
|
Privacy
|
Advertising
|
About
|
Contact
|
For Law Firms
|
Partners
Copyright © 2009 elinfonet.com, llc.
The use of this site, and the terms and conditions for our providing information, is governed by our Terms of Use, including the disclaimers contained therein. By using this site, you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Use and that you accept and will be bound by the terms thereof.
This site is designed for lawyers concentrating in employment law and human resource professionals who specialize in employee relations. As more fully set forth in the terms of use, the information provided on or through this site is for general information purposes; it is not a determination of your legal rights, nor your responsibilities under the law. None of the information contained on this site is, or should be construed as, legal advice. The information should not be relied upon for legal advice. We are not engaged in the practice of law and no attorney-client relationship is being created. Any information communicated to any lawyer via this site does not have the confidentiality protection of the attorney/client privilege. If you are seeking legal advice, find a qualified lawyer in your area. If you need help finding a lawyer, call your local, county or state bar association. All logos and trademarks on this site are property of their respective owners. | ||
Federal Article Feeds