Uniform Trade Secrets Act Did Not Displace Other Causes Of Action.

A former employee worked for plaintiff, a nationwide linen supply company for many years. He promised he would not, during his employment, “become interested, directly or indirectly, as a partner, officer, director, stockholder, advisor, employee, independent contractor or in any other form or capacity, in any other business similar to Company’s business.” While he was still employed, he prepared a business plan for a joint venture to go into competition with his employer. The joint venture was abandoned, but a board member of the company that abandoned the joint venture used plaintiff’s former employee’s business plan to form a competing company. Plaintiff brought an action on a variety of theories, including unfair competition and violation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act [Civil Code section 3426; UTSA]. The trial court granted defendants’ summary adjudication of all non-UTSA claims, and a jury found that none of the information allegedly appropriated was a trade secret within the meaning of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The appellate court reversed, stating: “The breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty theories advanced by the plaintiff do not depend on any misappropriation of trade secrets and therefore are not displaced by UTSA. Those theories also independently support the plaintiff’s related claims for statutory and common law unfair competition and interference with business relations.” (Angelica Textile Services, Inc. v. Jaye Park (Cal. App. Fourth Dist., Div. 1; October 15, 2013) (As mod. October 29, and November 7, 2013)  220 Cal.App.4th 495, [163 Cal.Rptr.3d 192].