SwedelsonGottlieb

SwedelsonGottlieb v. Noland CA1/3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 2, 2021A156334California5,566 words

Opinion

Opinion

Filed 11/2/21 SwedelsonGottlieb v. Noland CA1/

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

SWEDELSONGOTTLIEB,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

A156334, A156766

v. WILLIAM ALEXANDER NOLAND, (City & County of San Francisco Super. Ct. No. CGC 16-555026) Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiff SwedelsonGottlieb sued its former employee, defendant William Alexander Noland, for misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) after he left plaintiff’s law firm to begin his own law practice. The trial court entered judgment in favor of defendant and awarded defendant his attorney fees and costs upon finding that plaintiff pursued its trade secrets claim in “bad faith.” (Civ. Code, § 3426.4.)1 Plaintiff argues that the court abused its…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.