Lexplug logoLexplug

ABBA Rubber Company v. Roy J. Seaquist et al.

Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division Two
235 Cal.App.3d 1 (1991)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A trial court must require an applicant for a preliminary injunction to post an undertaking in an amount sufficient to compensate the enjoined party for all proximately caused damages, including lost profits and attorney's fees, should the injunction later be found to have been wrongfully issued.


Facts:

  • Roy J. Seaquist founded ABBA Rubber Company in 1959, sold it in 1980, and the plaintiff purchased it in 1982.
  • Jose Uribe and his brother Tony Uribe were longtime employees of ABBA, rising to vice-president and sales manager, respectively, giving them intimate knowledge of ABBA's customers.
  • After a non-compete agreement expired, Seaquist started a new company, Seaquist Company, to compete with ABBA in the rubber roller business.
  • On September 11, 1989, Jose Uribe left ABBA and was immediately hired by Seaquist to expand its rubber roller operations.
  • Shortly thereafter, Seaquist also hired Tony Uribe, who had recently been terminated by ABBA.
  • The Uribe brothers began soliciting business from ABBA's customers on behalf of Seaquist, sending a letter announcing Jose Uribe's move to the new company.
  • The Uribes denied taking any physical customer lists or records from ABBA.

Procedural Posture:

  • The plaintiff, ABBA Rubber Company, filed a complaint against Seaquist Company and Jose and Tony Uribe (defendants) in the trial court for misappropriation of trade secrets and other claims.
  • Plaintiff made an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction.
  • The trial court denied the TRO but granted the application for a preliminary injunction.
  • The trial court issued the preliminary injunction restraining defendants from soliciting ABBA's customers, conditioned upon the plaintiff posting a $1,000 undertaking.
  • The defendants (appellants) appealed the order granting the preliminary injunction to the intermediate appellate court.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Did the trial court abuse its discretion by issuing a preliminary injunction with a nominal $1,000 undertaking when the enjoined party presented evidence of potential lost revenue of over $300,000 per year?


Opinions:

Majority - McKinster, J.

Yes. A trial court abuses its discretion when it sets an undertaking at a nominal amount that bears no rational relationship to the foreseeable damages the enjoined party may suffer. The court's mandatory duty under Code of Civil Procedure § 529 is to estimate the harm an injunction is likely to have on the restrained party and set the undertaking at that sum. Foreseeable damages include not only lost profits that a business would have made if not for the injunction, but also the attorney's fees incurred in dissolving the injunction. In this case, the defendants' evidence, which the plaintiff did not dispute, indicated potential lost sales of $26,000 per month. The trial court's $1,000 undertaking was arbitrary and unreasonable, as it was insufficient to cover even the likely attorney's fees, let alone the substantial lost profits. While the court found that the plaintiff was likely to succeed on its trade secret misappropriation claim, the inadequacy of the undertaking required reversal of the injunction.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces the mandatory and substantive nature of the undertaking requirement for preliminary injunctions in California. It clarifies that trial courts cannot issue injunctions in commercial disputes with nominal bonds where significant financial losses, including lost profits and litigation costs, are foreseeable. The opinion's extensive analysis of California's trade secret law, while technically dicta, provides critical guidance that strengthens protection for customer lists. By establishing that information need not be 'readily unascertainable' to qualify as a trade secret, the court lowers the bar for such claims and distinguishes California's law from the standard Uniform Trade Secrets Act, impacting how businesses protect and litigate over compiled data.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query ABBA Rubber Company v. Roy J. Seaquist et al. (1991) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for ABBA Rubber Company v. Roy J. Seaquist et al.