Judge: James A. Mangione, Case: 37-2022-00034412-CU-BT-CTL, Date: 2024-02-15 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - February 15, 2024

02/15/2024  03:00:00 PM  C-75 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:James A Mangione

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Business Tort Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00034412-CU-BT-CTL MATIYA VS COMPASS DIGITAL [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendants' Motion to Dissolve the Temporary Restraining Order is granted.

The Court finds that there has been a material change in the facts upon which the Court granted the TRO and that the Legislature's declaration clarifying, via amendment, the scope of Business and Professions Code § 16600 changes the Court's evaluation of the TRO factors. (CCP § 533.) Preliminary injunctive relief is appropriate only if two interrelated factors are present: (1) the plaintiff is likely to prevail on the merits at trial; and (2) the interim harm the plaintiff is likely to sustain in the absence of an injunction is greater than the harm the defendant will probably suffer if an injunction is issued. (Vo v. City of Garden Grove (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 425, 433.) A consideration of interim harm includes the inadequacy of other remedies, including damages, and the degree of irreparable injury the denial of the injunction would cause. (Id. at p. 435; Intel Corp. v. Hamidi (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1342, 1352.) Upon consideration, the Court finds that the harm Defendants will suffer by maintaining the TRO exceeds any harm Plaintiffs might sustain without the TRO. Specifically, the Court finds that the TRO unfairly inhibits Defendants' ability to lawfully and fairly compete against Plaintiffs in the business market.

The evidence shows that the TRO prohibits contact from clients that Defendants know from sources independent from their prior work with Plaintiffs. Furthermore, Plaintiffs argue that speaking at an industry exposition is theoretically sufficient to violate the TRO because Plaintiffs have clients within that industry likely to attend such expositions. Such prohibitions go beyond protecting Plaintiffs' purported trade secrets and impermissibly limit Defendants' ability to compete in the marketplace. Consequently, the TRO is dissolved.

The minute order is the order of the Court.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3072133  5