O 1

JS-6

2 3 4 5 6 7

8 United States District Court 9 Central District of California

10

11 PILOT INC., a California corporation, Case № 2:20-cv-02978-ODW (RAOx)

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

13 v.

COMPEL ARBITRATION [36] AND

14 TYC BROTHER INDUSTRIAL CO., DENYING MOTION FOR 15 LTD. a Chinese corporation; PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [26] GENERA CORPORATION, a California corporation; DAVID TANG, 16 an individual; NGUYETT NGUYEN, 17 an individual; ANDREA LIRA, an individual; and BEATRIZ ATKINSON, 18 an individual,

19 Defendants.

20 21 I. INTRODUCTION 22 Plaintiff Pilot Inc. is a distributor of aftermarket automotive parts. Pilot was 23 Defendants Genera Corporation and TYC Brother Industrial Co. LTD’s exclusive 24 distributor in the United States for six specific retail customers. When Genera and 25 TYC terminated the agreement with Pilot and began servicing the six retail customers 26 directly, Pilot initiated this suit for misappropriation of trade secrets and other claims. 27 Pilot moves for a mandatory preliminary injunction to prevent Defendants from using 28 the misappropriated trade secrets to steal Pilot’s exclusive business. (Mot. Prelim. Inj. 1 (“Mot. PI”), ECF No. 26.) TYC, Genera, David Tang, Nguyett Nguyen, Andrea Lira, 2 and Beatriz Atkinson (collectively, “Defendants”) move to compel arbitration based 3 on an arbitration clause in the parties’ distribution agreement. (Mot. to Compel (“Mot. 4 Compel”), ECF No. 36.) The Court heard argument on the motions on June 22, 2020. 5 For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to 6 Compel Arbitration of all claims (ECF No. 36) and DENIES Pilot’s Motion for 7 Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 26). The Court therefore DISMISSES the action. 8 II. BACKGROUND 9 Pilot is a distributor and supplier of aftermarket automotive replacement parts 10 and accessories in the United States. (Compl. ¶ 19, ECF No. 1.) TYC is a Chinese 11 conglomerate that manufactures, among other things, automotive replacement and 12 aftermarket parts and accessories. (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 20.) Genera is a wholly-owned 13 subsidiary of TYC and is TYC’s general agent in the United States. (Compl. ¶ 20.) 14 Genera/TYC are considered the same for this action. (Compl. ¶ 20.) 15 Pilot has been a distributor for Genera/TYC in the United States for certain 16 national retail customers since 2004. (Compl. ¶ 21.) In 2017, Pilot and Genera/TYC 17 entered into a written distribution agreement (the “2017 Distribution Agreement”) 18 providing that Pilot would be Genera/TYC’s exclusive distributor to six specific 19 retailers (“Retail Customers”) for three years, from the Effective Date of March 28, 20 2017, through February 29, 2020. (Compl. ¶ 26, Ex. C (“2017 Distribution 21 Agreement”) § 1, ECF No. 1-3.) The exclusivity of the agreement was conditioned on 22 Pilot meeting certain criteria during the term, including satisfying certain sales 23 numbers, retaining a minimum of 80% of the Retail Customers from term to term, and 24 not distributing products that directly compete with Genera/TYC’s products. (2017 25 Distribution Agreement § 1.) Pilot and Genera/TYC also executed a Mutual 26 Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement (“NDA”) around the same time and 27 incorporated its terms into the parties’ agreements. (Compl. ¶ 29, Ex. E, ECF 28 No. 1-5.) 1 The 2017 Distribution Agreement includes an arbitration clause which states: 2 Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, including regarding its existence, validity or termination, shall be referred 3 to and finally resolved by arbitration administered by the Singapore 4 International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”) in accordance with the SIAC Rules then in force, which rules are deemed to be incorporated by 5 reference in this Agreement. The seat of the arbitration shall be Los 6 Angeles, California, USA. 7 (2017 Distribution Agreement § 10.) 8 On July 19, 2019, Pilot and Genera/TYC executed a second agreement, to 9 appoint Pilot as Genera/TYC’s exclusive distributor for an additional three-year term, 10 from March 1, 2020, through February 28, 2023 (the “2020 Agreement”). (Compl. 11 ¶ 26, Ex. D (“2020 Agreement”) §§ 1–2, ECF No. 1-4.) Pilot asserts the 2020 12 Agreement was to take effect on March 1, 2020. (Compl. ¶ 34.) The exclusivity of 13 the 2020 Agreement was again conditioned on specified criteria. (2020 Agreement 14 § 2.) Additionally, the 2020 Agreement states that it “constitutes the entire agreement 15 among the parties, and supersedes all other agreements whether written and/or oral.” 16 (2020 Agreement § 8.) The 2020 Agreement does not include an arbitration clause. 17 On January 10, 2020, Genera/TYC terminated Pilot as its exclusive distributor. 18 (Compl. ¶¶ 33–34.) Genera/TYC cited failure to meet the 2020 Agreement’s criteria 19 as the reason. (Compl. ¶ 34.) Genera/TYC also contends Pilot had been breaching 20 the 2017 Distribution Agreement throughout 2018 and 2019. (Mot. Compel 5.) 21 Defendants David Tang, Nguyett Nguyen, Andrea Lira, and Beatriz Atkinson 22 (“Individual Defendants”) are former Pilot employees that resigned from Pilot in 23 September 2019 (Atkinson) and February 2020 (Tang, Nguyen, and Lira) and began 24 working for Genera. (Compl. ¶ 38.) Pilot contends that Genera/TYC poached the 25 Individual Defendants and solicited them to steal Pilot’s trade secrets and confidential 26 information in an effort to take over Pilot’s exclusive business with the Retail 27 Customers. (Compl. ¶ 37.) 28 1 Accordingly, on March 30, 2020, Pilot initiated this action against Defendants 2 asserting the following eleven causes of action: 3 (1) Violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1831 et seq., against all Defendants; 4 (2) Violation of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act, California Civil 5 Code section 3426 et seq., against all Defendants; 6 (3) Breach of the 2020 Agreement, against Genera/TYC; (4) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, against 7 Genera/TYC; 8 (5) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations, against Genera/TYC; 9 (6) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations, against Genera/TYC; 10 (7) Breach of Employee Agreements, against Individual Defendants; (8) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, against Tang; 11 (9) Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty, against Genera/TYC; 12 (10) Civil Conspiracy, against all Defendants; 13 (11) Violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq., against all Defendants. 14 15 (Compl. ¶¶ 42–125.) On May 7, 2020, Pilot moved for a mandatory preliminary injunction. (See Mot PI.) On May 18, 2020, Defendants moved to compel arbitration. 16 17 (See Mot. Compel.) Both motions are fully briefed and the Court heard argument on 18 June 22, 2020. 19 III. DISCUSSION 20 The Court first addresses Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration before 21 turning to Pilot’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. A. Motion to Compel Arbitration [36] 22 23 The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) governs contract disputes relating to 24 arbitration where they affect interstate commerce. Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. 25 Dobson, 513 U.S. 265, 273–77 (1995). The FAA establishes “a liberal federal policy 26 favoring arbitration agreements” and requires district courts to compel arbitration on 27 all claims within the scope of the agreement. Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612, 1621 (2018) (quoting Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 28 1 460 U.S. 1, 24 (1983)); Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 218 (1985). 2 The federal policy favoring arbitration “applies with special force in the field of 3 international commerce.” Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 4 473 U.S. 614, 631 (1985). However, “arbitration is a matter of contract and a party 5 cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to 6 submit.” AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Commc’ns Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643, 648 (1986). 7 In deciding whether to compel arbitration, a court’s inquiry is generally limited 8 to “two ‘gateway’ issues: (1) whether there is an agreement to arbitrate between the 9 parties; and (2) whether the agreement covers the dispute.” Brennan v. Opus Bank, 10 796 F.3d 1125, 1130 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 11 537 U.S. 79, 84 (2002)). “If the response is affirmative on both counts, then the Act 12 requires the court to enforce the arbitration agreement in accordance with its terms.” 13 Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 207 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). 14 “[I]n deciding whether the parties have agreed to submit a particular grievance to 15 arbitration, a court is not to rule on the potential merits of the underlying claims.” 16 AT&T Techs., 475 U.S. at 649. 17 Turning to the first question, Defendants contend the 2017 Distribution 18 Agreement’s arbitration clause requires arbitration of all Pilot’s claims in this action 19 and the 2020 Agreement merely extended the 2017 Distribution Agreement’s 20 appointment term under modified conditions. (Mot. Compel 5–6, 14–18.) Pilot does 21 not dispute that the 2017 Distribution Agreement contains a valid arbitration clause 22 enforceable by all of the Defendants, or that the FAA applies to it. (Opp’n to Mot. 23 Compel (“Opp’n Compel”) 4, ECF No. 38; Reply Mot. Compel (“Reply Compel”) 2, 24 ECF No. 41.) Rather, Pilot argues the 2020 Agreement superseded the 2017 25 Distribution Agreement and does not incorporate the arbitration clause, meaning there 26 is no agreement to arbitrate between the parties. (Opp’n Compel 3–4.) 27 Much of the parties’ argument is smoke and mirrors. The simple fact is that 28 Genera/TYC terminated the exclusive distributorship on January 10, 2020, before the 1 2020 Agreement was to take effect on March 1, 2020. Pilot affirmed in briefing and 2 again at oral argument that the 2020 Agreement was not to take effect until March 1, 3 2020. Thus, because the 2020 Agreement never became effective, it could not have 4 superseded the 2017 Distribution Agreement or its arbitration clause. That means the 5 2017 Distribution Agreement was the operative agreement when this dispute arose. 6 The parties do not dispute that the 2017 Distribution Agreement’s arbitration clause is 7 valid and enforceable by all Defendants. Accordingly, the answer to the first question, 8 whether there is an agreement to arbitrate between the parties, is affirmative. 9 Turning to the second question, whether the agreement covers the dispute is 10 typically a question for the Court, unless the parties clearly and unmistakably delegate 11 that question to the arbitrator. AT&T Techs., 475 U.S. at 649; Brennan, 796 F.3d at 12 1130 (“[T]hese gateway issues can be expressly delegated to the arbitrator where the 13 parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise.” (internal quotation marks 14 omitted)). The parties spill much ink regarding whether the 2017 Distribution 15 Agreement’s arbitration clause covers the present dispute. However, it is ultimately of 16 no moment because, as Defendants correctly assert, the parties clearly and 17 unmistakably delegate questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator. (Mot. Compel 20.) 18 The Ninth Circuit has found express incorporation of an arbitral body’s rules 19 may delegate arbitrability to the arbitrator. Brennan, 796 F.3d at 1130. In Brennan, 20 the parties incorporated the AAA arbitration rules, which included a rule providing 21 that the “arbitrator shall have the power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction, 22 including any objections with respect to the . . . validity of the arbitration agreement.” 23 Id. (alteration in original). The Ninth Circuit held this language constituted “clear and 24 unmistakable evidence that contracting parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability.” Id. 25 The parties here expressly incorporate the SIAC Rules into the 2017 26 Distribution Agreement. (Mot. Compel 20; see 2017 Distribution Agreement § 10.) 27 In language nearly identical to the AAA rule in Brennan, SIAC Rule 28.2 states: “The 28 Tribunal shall have the power to rule on its own jurisdiction, including any objections 1 with respect to the existence, validity or scope of the arbitration agreement.” (Defs.’ 2 Req. for Judicial Notice (“RJN”) Ex. G (“SIAC Rules”), ECF No. 36-4.)1 Thus, as in 3 Brennan, the parties’ incorporation of the SIAC Rules into the 2017 Distribution 4 Agreement clearly and unmistakably delegates arbitrability to the arbitrator. 5 Accordingly, the second question is for the arbitrator. 6 A valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate exists between the parties and 7 they delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator. Accordingly, the Court must 8 enforce the arbitration agreement in accordance with its terms and compel arbitration. 9 The Court therefore GRANTS Defendants’ motion and compels arbitration of all 10 Pilot’s claims. 11 B. Motion for Preliminary Injunction [26] 12 Turning to Pilot’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Pilot seeks a mandatory 13 preliminary injunction ordering extensive relief. (See Mot. PI.) The injunction Pilot 14 seeks spans five pages and incorporates numerous pages of additional information 15 from two declarations. (See Proposed Order on Mot. PI, ECF No. 26-5.) In brief, 16 Pilot seeks an order that Defendants and any entity acting in concert with Defendants 17 (i) return to Pilot its confidential information; (ii) certify that they have returned it all 18 and identify any third parties with whom Defendants shared information; (iii) turn 19 over to Pilot all data and every email and business account, computer, server, and 20 other IT equipment in use at Genera/TYC and by the Individual Defendants, for an 21 independent digital forensic expert to examine, identify, and remove Pilot’s 22 confidential information; (iv) be enjoined from using Pilot’s confidential information 23 and from doing business with the six Retail Customers with the use of Pilot’s 24 confidential information; (v) enjoining Individual Defendants from violating the 25 confidentiality provisions of alleged employee agreements; and (vi) serve copies of 26 27

28 1 The Court GRANTS Defendants’ RJN as SIAC Rules are properly subject to judicial notice. See Golden Temple of Or., LLC v. Puri, 774 F. App’x 1044, 1045 n.2 (9th Cir. 2019). 1 the injunction order on the Retail Customers and other third parties. (See Proposed 2 Order on Mot. PI.) 3 As a preliminary issue, Defendants contend the Court may not grant the 4 injunctive relief Pilot seeks once it compels arbitration because the SIAC is authorized 5 to grant equivalent relief. (Mot. Compel 18 (citing Simula Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc., 175 6 F.3d 716, 726 (9th Cir. 1999)).) Defendants are mistaken. 7 It is true that the Ninth Circuit stated in Simula that “it would [be] inappropriate 8 for the district court to grant preliminary injunctive relief” where all claims were 9 subject to arbitration and the arbitral tribunal was authorized to grant equivalent relief. 10 Simula, 175 F. 3d at 726. However, the Ninth Circuit subsequently clarified that a 11 court has the authority to grant interim injunctive relief on arbitrable claims, even 12 where it has compelled arbitration, “if interim relief is necessary to preserve the status 13 quo and the meaningfulness of the arbitration process.” Toyo Tire Holdings of Am. 14 Inc. v. Cont’l Tire N. Am., Inc., 609 F.3d 975, 981, 982 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that 15 the district court erred by finding as a matter of law that it lacked the power to grant 16 injunctive relief). Nothing in Simula prevents a court from granting an interim 17 injunction to preserve the status quo until the arbitral panel can consider a similar 18 application. Id. at 981 (finding this holding consistent with Simula). Further, the 19 parties here expressly agreed to allow either party to seek judicial interim injunctive 20 relief “to preserve the status quo during the arbitration process.” (2017 Distribution 21 Agreement § 11.) And SIAC Rule 30.3, incorporated by reference, provides that such 22 a request “is not incompatible with these Rules.” (SIAC Rule 30.3.) Thus, the Court 23 may consider Pilot’s request to the extent interim relief will “preserve the status quo.” 24 Toyo Tire, 609 F.3d at 981; (2017 Distribution Agreement § 11.) 25 However, Pilot’s requested injunction is extensive and goes far beyond merely 26 preserving the status quo. Although a prohibitory injunction may preserve the status 27 quo by ordering a party to refrain from certain acts, a mandatory injunction reaches 28 beyond the status quo and orders a party to act. See Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 1 976, 998–99 (9th Cir. 2017); Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2 2015) (noting that mandatory injunctions are “particularly disfavored”). 3 Pilot seeks a mandatory injunction ordering Defendants to act, including, for 4 example, that Genera/TYC and Individual Defendants give to Pilot all data, every 5 email and business account, and every computer, server, and other IT equipment. (See 6 Proposed Order on Mot. PI.) Far from preserving the status quo, the requested 7 injunction would instead radically alter the parties’ relationship by giving Pilot access 8 to all of Genera/TYC and Individual Defendants’ data, accounts, and equipment. 9 Pilot’s injunction would cripple Genera/TYC’s operations. It would also require 10 extensive Court oversight. The scope of Pilot’s requested injunction is extreme, 11 invasive, and overbroad, and not designed to “preserve the status quo.” 12 As Pilot’s requested injunction goes well beyond preserving the status quo, the 13 Court DENIES Pilot’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. 14 C. Stay or Dismiss 15 Defendants contend that, once the Court compels arbitration of Pilot’s claims, it 16 should dismiss this action with prejudice. (Mot. Compel 25.) Pilot argues the Court 17 should instead stay the litigation. (Opp’n Compel 12.) 18 In the Ninth Circuit, the district court has discretion to dismiss a party’s 19 complaint where the court finds all claims subject to arbitration. See, e.g., 20 Johnmohammadi v. Bloomingdale’s, Inc., 755 F.3d 1072, 1074 (9th Cir. 2014) 21 (affirming dismissal of action without prejudice where “all of the claims raised in the 22 action are subject to arbitration”). As the Court compels all Pilot’s claims to 23 arbitration and denies Pilot’s request for interim injunctive relief, the Court, in its 24 discretion, DISMISSES this action without prejudice. 25 26 27 28 1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons above, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Compel 3 | Arbitration (ECF No. 36) and DENIES Pilot’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction 4 || (ECF No. 26). The Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 3 July 8, 2020 VE wy

10 OTIS WRIGHT, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28