Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02748/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02748-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christina Chang
Counter-claimant
Creative Marketing Concepts
Plaintiff
Mark Lillge
Counter-defendant
Andrew Verity
Counter-claimant

Document Text:

–1– 

 [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. C 07-02748 MHP 

 CONFIRMING SCOPE OF TRO AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 

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

HARVEY SISKIND LLP 

IAN K. BOYD (State Bar No. 191434) 

iboyd@harveysiskind.com 

SETH I. APPEL (State Bar No. 233421) 

sappel@harveysiskind.com 

Four Embarcadero Center, 39th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94111 

Telephone: (415) 354-0100 

Facsimile: (415) 391-7124 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Mark Lillge d/b/a Creative Marketing Concepts 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

MARK LILLGE d/b/a CREATIVE 

MARKETING CONCEPTS, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

ANDREW VERITY and CHRISTINA 

CHANG, 

 Defendants. 

 Case No. C 07-02748 MHP 

[PROPOSED] ORDER CONFIRMING 

SCOPE OF TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER AND 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 

On May 31, 2007, the Court heard the application for a Temporary Restraining Order filed by 

plaintiff Mark Lillge d/b/a Creative Marketing Concepts (“CMC”) against CMC’s former employees, 

defendants Andrew Verity and Christina Chang. At that time, the Court granted the Temporary 

Restraining Order. It ruled that “there is to be no transmission or use of – and defining these terms as 

broadly as possible – of trade secret information in the pursuing of [Defendants’] own business and in 

pursuing clients and so forth.” The Court further held that Defendants were not to “initiate contact” 

Case 3:07-cv-02748-MHP Document 75 Filed 11/13/07 Page 1 of 2
–2– 

 [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. C 07-02748 MHP 

 CONFIRMING SCOPE OF TRO AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 

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

with CMC’s clients until further order of the Court, and that “they are not to solicit customers of 

CMC” during this time. 

 Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, that Temporary Restraining Order remained in effect 

until the Court ruled on CMC’s request to convert the Temporary Restraining Order into a 

Preliminary Injunction to enjoin defendants in this regard until a full trial on the merits. At the 

August 27, 2007 preliminary injunction hearing, the Court reminded the parties that the Temporary 

Restraining Order remained in effect until the Court’s ruling on the preliminary injunction. 

 On October 1, 2007, the Court granted plaintiff’s motion, and converted the Temporary 

Restraining Order into a Preliminary Injunction. The Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order 

confirmed that while defendants were “barred from initiating contact with” CMC’s customers, 

defendants remained free to do business with those customers that contacted them (emphasis in 

original). 

 This addendum confirms that more than one notification from defendants to CMC’s 

customers regarding their new business is not permitted under either the Temporary Restraining 

Order or the Preliminary Injunction Order (even when such notification in isolation may not be 

viewed as a solicitation). As confirmed by both Orders, repeated notifications to a customer 

constitute a solicitation and improper initiation of contact violating the injunctions which have been 

and are currently in force. See American Credit Indemnity Co. v. Sacks, 213 Cal. App. 3d 622, 637 

(1989). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November ___, 2007 

 The Honorable Marilyn Hall Patel 

 United States District Court Judge 

9

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:07-cv-02748-MHP Document 75 Filed 11/13/07 Page 2 of 2