Petitioner former employer sought a writ of mandate, challenging an order of respondent Superior Court of San Diego County - timscotty/timscotty GitHub Wiki

Petitioner former employer sought a writ of mandate, challenging an order of respondent Superior Court of San Diego County (California) that acquitted real parties in interest, a former employee and his competing company, of contempt for violating a stipulated injunction enjoining the former employee and his company from soliciting certain of the former employer's customers.

Overview: Can I sue my employer for not paying me on time?

The former employer also challenged an order denying its motion to enforce the parties' settlement agreement that incorporated the stipulated injunction. The court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment applied to nonsummary criminal contempt prosecutions and prohibited reexamination of a court-decreed acquittal to the same extent it prohibited reexamination of an acquittal by jury verdict. Thus, the trial court's acquittal of the former employee and his company of criminal contempt charges precluded further proceedings pertaining to those charges. The court also held that a party could not successfully defend against an alleged violation of a facially valid stipulated injunction that the trial court had jurisdiction to issue on the ground that the injunction was invalid. In the instant case, the stipulated injunction was facially valid. It protected the former employer's trade secrets, and one could not conclude from its face that it did not protect the former employer's trade secrets. The trial court thus erred in concluding that the stipulated injunction was invalid and in refusing to enforce the injunction on that basis.

The court denied the writ petition. The court reversed the order denying the former employer's motion to enforce the settlement agreement and remanded the matter with directions, but affirmed an order to enforce the settlement agreement with respect to a different customer/job listed in the stipulated injunction.

The parties appealed from a decision of the Superior Court of San Diego County (California) in which the trial court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellant for restitution based on rescission, compensatory damages, and punitive damages in plaintiff-appellant contract and tort action against defendant-appellants.

Plaintiff-appellant brought a contract and tort action against defendant-appellants based on their violation of a covenant not to compete. Judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff-appellant for restitution based on rescission, compensatory damages, and punitive damages. The parties appealed. One issue on appeal was whether the jury instruction on covenants not to compete was erroneous. The court reviewed the instruction, which stated a covenant not to compete would be enforced to the extent that it was reasonable and necessary in terms of time, activity, and territory to protect the buyer's interest. Defendant-appellants contended the territorial extent of the instruction was too broad and violated Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16601. The court held the instruction was proper and affirmed the decision. The court noted the territory encompassed in the terms of the covenant was an accumulation of the cities and counties impacted by the market area of the business, which was sold.

The court affirmed the lower court's decision and held that the jury instruction on covenants not to compete was proper because the territory encompassed in this case was an accumulation of the cities and counties impacted by the market area of the business, which was sold.