Hunter Consulting Inc v. Frank Beas et al

Filing 33

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER by Judge Andrew J. Guilford: The Court ORDERS that pending trial in this matter or further order of court, the Beas defendants, and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and other persons who are in active concert or participation with them, who receive actual notice of this Order, ARE ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED FROM: 1. Using, disclosing, forwarding, delivering: (See document for details.) 7. Nothing herein is intended to enjoin the Beas defendant s from contacting customers, vendors, or other persons of whom the Beas defendants independently derived the information; 8. HCI has the duty to serve this Order as is necessary for its enforcement; 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order shall be effective upon HCI posting a bond for $50,000 with the Clerk of the Court. (rla)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

HUNTER CONSULTING, INC., a Nevada )
)
corporation,
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
FRANK BAES, an individual; BEN
)
MAESE, an individual; TIFFANY VAN )
HORN, an individual; 13 TONS, LLC, a )
)
Nevada limited liability company; EARTH )
)
CONSCIOUS, LLC, a Nevada limited
)
liability company; LES LIVINGSTON,
)
individually and dba LCL CONSULTING, )
INC.; PHOENIX ENVIRONMENTAL, )
)
INC., a Nevada corporation; and DOES 1 )
)
through 10, inclusive,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________)

Case No.: SACV12 1947AG (JPRx)
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
ORDER
DATE: December 10, 2012
TIME: 10:00 a.m.
COURTROOM: 10-D

26
27
28

This matter came on for hearing on December 10, 2012, in Room 10-D of the
above-entitled court, the Honorable Andrew Guilford, United States District Court
–1–

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER

1

Judge presiding. Joseph A. Yanny, Esq. of Yanny & Smith appeared for plaintiff

2

Hunter Consulting, Inc. (“HCI” or “Plaintiff”); Mark S. Rosen, Esq. appeared for

3

defendants Frank Beas, Ben Maese, Tiffany Van Horn, 13 Tons, LLC, and Earth

4

Conscious, LLC (“Beas defendants”). David Sine, Esq. appeared for defendants Les

5

Livingston and Phoenix Environmental, Inc. (“Livingston defendants”).

6

This order pertains to the Beas defendants. A separate order will be made

7

pertaining to the Livingston defendants. This matter was heard on an expedited basis,

8

on the basis of the declarations of the parties and limited discovery. The Court has

9

already issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

After reading all supporting and opposing papers and declarations, and hearing
argument of counsel, the Court finds as follows:
1. The Court previously granted an Order to Show Cause why a preliminary
injunction should not issue. The Court finds that the Beas defendants have failed to
show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue.
2. For the purpose of this Order the Court finds that Plaintiff uses proprietary
software that took a year to develop and is the result of thousands of man-hours of data

17
18
19
20
21

compilation, and uses the software to quickly tailor bids according to its client’s needs.
3. Defendant Frank Beas was the Director of Sales for Plaintiff from April 2010
until October 5, 2012. Plaintiff and Beas entered into a nondisclosure agreement.
Plaintiff claims that while Beas was still employed by Plaintiff he entered into an

22

agreement with Maese and Van Horn to form a venture to compete with Plaintiff using

23

Plaintiff’s proprietary information. Plaintiff asserts that Beas sent numerous emails

24

containing customer contact information and bid specifications to Van Horn while he

25

was still employed by Plaintiff.

26

4. Plaintiff owned trade secrets contained in the emails. For the purpose of this

27

Order, the disclosure by Beas, by email or otherwise of customer information or bid

28

specifications and the corresponding acquisition of that information by defendants was
–2–

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER

1

improper. To the extent that Plaintiff is subject to competitive pressures from

2

Defendants arising from any improper use of Plaintiff’s Proprietary Information,

3

Plaintiff has suffered damages from Defendants’ actions. Based on this, Plaintiff has

4

established a likelihood of success on the merits for its trade secret claim. This Order

5

merely prohibits the Defendants from using improperly obtained proprietary

6

information.

7
8
9

GOOD CAUSE THEREBY HAVING BEEN SHOWN, The Court ORDERS
that pending trial in this matter or further order of court, the Beas defendants, and their

10

officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and other persons who are in

11

active concert or participation with them, who receive actual notice of this Order, ARE

12

ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED FROM:

13
14
15
16

1. Using, disclosing, forwarding, delivering, reading, or sending any
information contained in emails sent from Beas to Van Horn containing Plaintiff’s
customer contact information, bid specifications, or other proprietary information; or
any of the information contained in the emails which Beas may have preserved by disc,

17
18
19
20
21

notes, or other means;
2. Calling on, soliciting, attempting to sell, or selling products or services that
the Beas defendants learned of from Frank Beas, and whom Frank Beas learned of
from HCI, or which the Beas defendants might have learned of for the first time from

22

any court filings in this case, whether those court filings concern the Beas defendants

23

or the Livingston defendants;

24

3. Attempting to contract with any vendors that the Beas defendants learned of

25

from Frank Beas, and whom Frank Beas learned of from HCI, or which the Beas

26

defendants might have learned of for the first time from any court filings in this case,

27

whether those court filings concern the Beas defendants or the Livingston defendants;

28

4. Opening or transmitting emails sent by Beas prior to his joining Earth
–3–

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER

1

Conscious to the extent they have not already been opened. Nothing herein shall

2

prohibit the Beas defendants from currently communicating with one another by email;

3
4
5

5. Retaining, disclosing, or using any proprietary software obtained from Frank
Beas, and whom Frank Beas obtained from HCI;
6. Destroying or disposing of any documents or files of any kind, actively or

6

passively, whether in written or electronic form, that relate in any way to HCI’s

7

employment of Frank Beas and/or HCI’s proprietary information. To the extent that

8

any such documents or files have been destroyed by the Beas defendants, or any of

9

them, that defendant or those defendants are to provide Plaintiff with an itemized list

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

of such documents or files within five days;
7. Nothing herein is intended to enjoin the Beas defendants from contacting
customers, vendors, or other persons of whom the Beas defendants independently
derived the information;
8. HCI has the duty to serve this Order as is necessary for its enforcement;
9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order shall be effective upon HCI
posting a bond for $50,000 with the Clerk of the Court.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 19, 2012

____________________________
ANDREW GUILFORD
United States District Court Judge

24
25
26
27
28
–4–

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER