Judge Nick A. Dourbetas, Case 22-01285252 2023-08-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Nick A. Dourbetas, Case: 22-01285252, Date: 2023-08-11 Tentative Ruling

1. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

2. Case Management Conference

Defendant Afshan Sharifirad’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the 1st, 3rd, and 5th through 9th causes of action of the Complaint filed by Plaintiff The Pacific Showroom, Inc. is GRANTED, with leave to amend. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438 [authorizing motion].)

Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days to file an amended complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (h)(2).)

1st cause of action: conversion.

This cause of action is based on the same facts as plaintiff’s 4th cause of action for violation of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act [“CUTSA”], and is thus preempted. (K.C. Multimedia, Inc. v. Bank of America Technology & Operations, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 939, 958-959 [“K.C. Multimedia”] [CUTSA preempts or displaces common law claims that are “based on the same nucleus of facts as the misappropriation of trade secrets claim for relief;” merely alleging a “different theory of liability” does not survive CUTSA’s preemptive effect]; Silvaco Data Systems v. Intel Corp. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 210, 239, disapproved on other grounds in Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 51 Cal.4th 310 [“Silvaco”] [“It is never ‘premature’ to require that the plaintiff allege facts sufficient to constitute a viable cause of action”]; Complaint, ¶¶ 9-11, 13, 14, 47, 48 [alleging defendant misappropriated plaintiff’s trade secret and proprietary information]; Complaint, ¶¶ 19, 21 [alleging defendant converted plaintiff’s proprietary information].)

3rd cause of action: breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

This cause of action is based on the same facts as plaintiff’s 4th cause of action for violation of CUTSA, and is thus preempted. (K.C. Multimedia, supra at 958-959; Silvaco, supra at 239; Complaint, ¶¶ 9-11, 13, 14, 47, 48 [alleging defendant misappropriated plaintiff’s trade secret and proprietary information]; Complaint, ¶ 42 [alleging same facts as basis for 3rd cause of action].)

5th cause of action: negligence.

This cause of action is based on the same facts as plaintiff’s 4th cause of action for violation of CUTSA, and is thus preempted. (K.C. Multimedia, supra at 958-959; Silvaco, supra at 239; Complaint, ¶¶ 9-11, 13, 14, 47, 48 [alleging defendant misappropriated plaintiff’s trade secret and proprietary information]; Complaint, ¶ 56 [alleging defendant’s use of plaintiff’s proprietary information was negligent].)

6th cause of action: violation of Bus. and Prof. Code, §§ 17200 et seq.

This cause of action is based on the same facts as plaintiff’s 4th cause of action for violation of CUTSA, and is thus preempted. (K.C. Multimedia, supra at 958-959; Silvaco, supra at 239; Complaint, ¶¶ 9-11, 13, 14, 47, 48 [alleging defendant misappropriated plaintiff’s trade secret and proprietary information]; Complaint, ¶ 56 [“Sharifirad's conduct described above constitutes a violation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act … and unfair business practices within the meaning of Business and Professions Code §17200 et seq.”].)

To the extent plaintiff also alleges fraud (Complaint, ¶ 65), the Complaint fails to allege fraud with the requisite specificity. . (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645 [fraud claims must be pled with particularity, including facts showing “how, when, where, to whom and by what means the representations were tendered”]; Covenant Care, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 771, 790 [statutory claims must be pled with specificity]; Cansino v. Bank of America (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1462, 1474 [UCL claim based on fraud failed for lack of specificity].)

7th cause of action: intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; 8th cause of action: negligent interference with prospective economic advantage.

These causes of action are based on the same facts as plaintiff’s 4th cause of action for violation of CUTSA, and are thus preempted. (K.C. Multimedia, supra at 958-959; Silvaco, supra at 239; Complaint, ¶¶ 9-11, 13, 14, 47, 48 [alleging defendant misappropriated plaintiff’s trade secret and proprietary information]; Complaint, ¶¶ 73, 74, 82, 83 [interference claims based on alleged misuse of plaintiff’s proprietary information; further, that defendant’s actions were independently wrongful because they violate CUTSA].)

9th cause of action: unjust enrichment.

This cause of action is based on the same facts as plaintiff’s 4th cause of action for violation of CUTSA, and is thus preempted. (K.C. Multimedia, supra at 958-959; Silvaco, supra at 239; Complaint, ¶¶ 9-11, 13, 14, 47, 48 [alleging defendant misappropriated plaintiff’s trade secret and proprietary information]; Complaint, ¶ 89 [alleging same facts as basis for 9th cause of action].)

This cause of action also fails because there is no cause of action for unjust enrichment in California. (Melchior v. New Line Productions, Inc. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 779, 794.) As to this cause of action, leave to amend is limited to alleging restitution as a remedy in connection with another valid cause of action.

***CMC is continued to December 18, 2023 at 9 AM.

Moving defendant shall give notice of all the above.