Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03169/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03169-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Injunctive &amp; Declaratory Relief

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HUNTER LANDERS, an individual residing

in California,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CURRAN & CONNORS, INC., a Delaware

corporation and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-03169 WHA

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

In this diversity action for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to California

Business and Professions Code §§ 16600 and 17200, defendant Curran & Connors, Inc. (“C &

C”) now moves for summary judgment on grounds that a case or controversy no longer exists. 

Given defense counsel’s concessions at oral argument that C & C will not enforce the

non-competition covenant in plaintiff Hunter Landers’ employment agreement at any time or

any place, this action is moot. Defendant’s motion, therefore, is GRANTED.

Case 3:05-cv-03169-WHA Document 66 Filed 02/02/06 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

STATEMENT

This suit began as an attempt by plaintiff to invalidate an anti-competition covenant in

an employment agreement with his former employer, C & C. The latter is a graphics-design

firm whose primary business is the development and preparation of corporate communications

such as annual corporate reports. On July 5, 2005, plaintiff resigned. Plaintiff is now employed

in the California office of Creative Strategy Group, Inc. (“CSG”), a graphics-design company

that performs similar services to C & C. Defendant asserts that plaintiff’s suit fails to present a

justiciable case or controversy.

Defendant has consistently maintained that it does not intend to prevent Landers from

competing with C & C within California. “[B]oth Hank Morris, C & C’s CEO, and Scott

Greenberg, C & C’s President, have indicated that C & C does not intend to enforce any

non-compete provision in the Agreement against Landers in California, based on his activities

in California” (Br. 5; Morris Decl. ¶ 9).

Defendant, however, has provided ambiguous statements with respect to whether or not

C & C planned to enforce the covenant to prevent Landers’ from engaging in competitive

activities outside of California. For example, defendant’s CEO attested that “I, and C & C,

have no intention of taking any action against Mr. Landers for competing with C & C. If C & C

were to consider changing its intention, such a decision would have to be made on a

case-by-case basis only after careful and lengthy consideration of many factors” (Morris Decl. ¶

10). During his deposition, though, CEO Morris asserted C & C’s lack of intention to enforce

the covenant against plaintiff regardless of geography (Morris Depo. 75:25–76:7, 80:15–18).

At the hearing on the instant motion, defense counsel, Mr. Ronald B. Turovsky,

categorically committed to this latter position. Defense counsel stated that defendant will not

seek to enforce the anti-competition covenant anywhere or anytime and that Mr. Landers is free

to solicit or accept clients anywhere in the world. Defense counsel also confirmed that C & C

will not seek to restrict Landers’ use of certain vendors that C & C also uses. Finally, defense

counsel indicated that C & C has no present intention of bringing claims against plaintiff for

Case 3:05-cv-03169-WHA Document 66 Filed 02/02/06 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

misappropriation of trade secrets, although defense counsel reserved the right to pursue such

claims should a violation occur. 

ANALYSIS

“A lawsuit seeking federal declaratory relief must first present an actual case or

controversy within the meaning of Article III, section 2 of the United States Constitution.” 

Gov’t Employees Ins. Co. v. Dizol, 133 F.3d 1220, 1222 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc) (citations

omitted). “[A] declaratory judgment may not be used to secure judicial determination of moot

questions.” Native Village of Noatak v. Blatchford, 38 F.3d 1505, 1514 (9th Cir. 1994). 

Furthermore, “a federal court normally ought not resolve issues involving contingent future

events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.” Clinton v. Acequia,

Inc., 94 F.3d 568 572 (9th Cir. 1996).

Prior to oral argument, the issue at hand was whether the dispute between the parties

over the enforceability of the covenant was sufficiently ripe to be justiciable. Even if the

dispute was ripe, however, the dispute was resolved during the hearing on this motion. Defense

counsel’s statements that C & C will not enforce the covenant, no matter where Landers may

engage in competitive activity, rendered plaintiff’s action moot. If indeed there ever was a

sufficient threat to entitle plaintiff to declaratory relief, it is no longer present. 

Moreover, in his complaint, plaintiff never requested declaratory relief that defendant

may not sue him for misappropriate of trade secrets. Even if such a claim were made, there

would be no justiciable dispute. It is too hypothetical that somewhere down the line plaintiff

might violate a trade secret and that defendant might in turn prosecute an action to stop the

violation. We cannot adjudicate such hypotheticals. 

Case 3:05-cv-03169-WHA Document 66 Filed 02/02/06 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. 

Judgement will be entered accordingly. Plaintiff’s motions to amend and to compel are mooted

by this order thus the hearings on those two motions are VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 2, 2006 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-03169-WHA Document 66 Filed 02/02/06 Page 4 of 4