Title: Advanced Bionics v. Medtronic
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: S097308
State: California
Issuer: California Supreme Court
Date: December 19, 2002

1
Filed 12/19/02 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 
 
ADVANCED BIONICS CORPORATION ) 
et al., 
) 
 
 
) 
 
Plaintiffs and Respondents, 
) 
S097308 
 
 
) 
 
v. 
) 
 
 
) 
Ct.App. 2/1 B144465 
MEDTRONIC, INC., 
) 
 
) 
Los Angeles County 
 
Defendant and Appellant. 
) 
Super. Ct. No. BC231335 
___________________________________ ) 
MEDTRONIC, INC., 
) 
 
 
) 
 
Petitioner, 
) 
 
 
) 
 
v. 
) 
 
 
) 
Ct.App. 2/1 B144920 
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS  
) 
ANGELES COUNTY, 
) 
Los Angeles County 
 
) 
Super. Ct. No. BC231335 
 
Respondent; 
) 
 
) 
ADVANCED BIONICS CORPORATION ) 
et al., 
) 
 
) 
 
Real Parties in Interest. 
) 
___________________________________ ) 
 
We granted review to decide whether a California court may enjoin a party 
subject to its jurisdiction from commencing litigation over a noncompetition 
agreement in another state.  We  conclude that under principles of judicial restraint 
 
2
and comity the temporary restraining order (TRO) issued here to prevent parties 
from proceeding in a parallel Minnesota action was improper.  We therefore 
reverse the Court of Appeal’s judgment. 
FACTS 
Medtronic, Inc. (Medtronic), a Minnesota corporation with headquarters in 
Fridley, Minnesota, manufactures implantable neurostimulation devices used to 
treat chronic pain.  In 1995, Medtronic hired plaintiff Mark Stultz in Minnesota as 
a senior product specialist responsible for spinal cord stimulator lead wires.  He 
was soon promoted to senior product manager in the “Neurostimulation-Pain 
Division,” where he was responsible for managing Medtronic’s neurostimulation 
products.  
On accepting employment, Stultz signed the “Medtronic Employee 
Agreement” (Agreement).  The Agreement contained a covenant not to compete, 
providing that for two years after employment termination, Stultz would not 
“directly or indirectly render services (including services in research) to any 
person or entity in connection with the design, development, manufacture, 
marketing, or sale of a Competitive Product that is sold or intended for use or sale 
in any geographic area in which Medtronic actively markets a Medtronic Product 
or intends to actively market a Medtronic Product of the same general type of 
function.”  The Agreement defined a “Competitive Product” as “of the same 
general type, performs similar functions, or is used for the same purposes as a 
Medtronic Product on which the employee worked during the last two years of 
employment or about which he/she received or had knowledge of Confidential 
Information.”  
The Agreement included a choice-of-law provision:  “The validity, 
enforceability, construction and interpretation of this Agreement shall be governed 
by the laws of the state in which the Employee was last employed by Medtronic.”  
 
3
For the duration of his employment, Stultz worked for Medtronic’s Minnesota 
office. 
On June 7, 2000, Stultz resigned from Medtronic and went to California to 
work for Advanced Bionics Corporation (Advanced Bionics), a Delaware 
corporation with headquarters in Sylmar, California.  The company, a competitor 
of Medtronic’s, develops and manufactures implantable medical devices used to 
restore hearing to the profoundly deaf.  It hired Stultz as a director of business 
development to market its own spinal cord stimulation device.  On the same day, 
in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Stultz and Advanced Bionics sued 
Medtronic for declaratory relief, alleging that Medtronic’s covenant not to 
compete and choice-of-law provisions violated California’s law and public policy 
and are void under Business and Professions Code section 16600.1  Section 16600 
provides in pertinent part that “every contract by which anyone is restrained from 
engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent 
void.”2 
On June 8, 2000, Stultz and Advanced Bionics notified Medtronic that they 
intended to apply for a TRO.  They applied for an order “enjoining Medtronic 
from taking any action, other than in this court, to enforce its non-competition 
agreement with Mr. Stultz, or to otherwise restrain Mr. Stultz from working for 
Advanced Bionics . . . .”  The trial court put over the matter for one day in order to 
give Medtronic an opportunity to respond.  The court rejected Stultz and 
                                             
 
1  
All statutory references are to the Business and Professions Code unless 
otherwise stated. 
2  
A few days later, Stultz and Advanced Bionics amended the complaint to 
add unfair competition and unfair business practices claims under section 17200 et 
seq.  That section defines “unfair competition” to include “any unlawful, unfair or 
fraudulent business act or practice . . . .”  (Ibid.) 
 
4
Advanced Bionics’s assertion that Medtronic would use the time to “race to court” 
in Minnesota.  Medtronic immediately removed the action to federal court in order 
to avoid a hearing on the TRO.  
On June 9, 2000, while the action was pending in federal court, Medtronic 
filed an action in Minnesota state court alleging claims for breach of contract 
against Stultz and tortious interference with contract against Advanced Bionics.  
Medtronic filed the action in order to prevent Stultz from working on a competing 
product at Advanced Bionics.  Medtronic then obtained a TRO from the 
Minnesota court enjoining Advanced Bionics from hiring Stultz in any 
competitive role.  The order also barred both parties “[f]rom making any motion or 
taking any action or obtaining any order or direction from any court that [would] 
prevent or interfere in any way with [the Minnesota court’s] determining whether 
it should determine all or any part of the claims alleged in [the Minnesota] lawsuit, 
including claims for temporary, preliminary or permanent relief.”   
Within a week, the federal court remanded the California action to the trial 
court, finding, among other things, that Medtronic had filed its removal notice 
without evidentiary support and “for the improper purpose of avoiding an 
unfavorable ruling upon a pending motion before a state court.”  The federal order 
stated that removal was improper because Medtronic, a Minnesota company, 
purported to rely on diversity jurisdiction, even though it knew Stultz was still a 
Minnesota resident.  The federal court also noted that Medtronic had removed the 
California action “not to have the matter heard in this court, but to interfere with 
[the TRO] matter being heard.”   
Thereafter, on July 21, 2000, Medtronic filed a motion in Los Angeles 
County Superior Court to dismiss or stay the California action on the ground the 
matter should be decided in Minnesota.  The court denied the motion, finding that 
 
5
under a totality of the circumstances, staying or dismissing the California action 
would not serve the interests of substantial justice.   
On August 3, 2000, the Minnesota court issued a preliminary injunction 
that was similar to its TRO, except it did not include the provision restraining 
Stultz and Advanced Bionics from pursuing other litigation; it simply restricted 
Stultz’s activities as an Advanced Bionics employee.  The court also dissolved the 
TRO.  In Minnesota, Stultz and Advanced Bionics appealed the order issuing the 
preliminary injunction.  
On August 8, 2000, Stultz and Advanced Bionics applied ex parte to the 
California court for a TRO and order to show cause re preliminary injunction to 
prohibit Medtronic from taking any further steps in the Minnesota action.  The 
court granted the application, finding there was a “substantial chance” that 
Medtronic would “go to the Minnesota court [and] attempt to undercut the 
California court’s jurisdiction.”  Medtronic was “restrained and enjoined from 
taking any action whatsoever, other than in this Court, to enforce [its covenant not 
to compete] against . . . Stultz or to otherwise restrain . . . Stultz from working for 
Advanced Bionics in California, including but not limited to making any 
appearance, filing any paper, participating in any proceeding, posting any bond, or 
taking any other action in the second-filed [Minnesota] lawsuit . . . . ”3  This TRO 
was the subject of Medtronic’s appeal in the California Court of Appeal. 
On August 16, 2000, the Minnesota court amended its August 3 
preliminary injunction (purportedly nunc pro tunc), stating it had “failed to 
incorporate language enjoining [Stultz and Advanced Bionics] from obtaining 
                                             
 
3  
By order to show cause, the court set a hearing to determine whether it 
should issue a preliminary TRO, but that matter was taken off calendar when the 
parties stipulated that the TRO would remain in effect.  
 
6
relief in another court that would effectively stay or limit [the Minnesota] action.”  
The court added a provision enjoining Stultz and Advanced Bionics “from seeking 
any interim or temporary relief from any other court that would effectively stay, 
limit or restrain [the Minnesota] action,” and ordered them to “move to vacate and 
rescind the August 8, 2000 [TRO] obtained in the California action and refrain 
from seeking any relief in that action that stays or restrains [the Minnesota] action 
in any way.”4  
Stultz and Advanced Bionics informed the Los Angeles County Superior 
Court that the Minnesota court had directed them to seek vacation of the TRO.  
The superior court refused to vacate its order.  The next day, the Minnesota court 
held a pretrial conference.  Stultz and Advanced Bionics appeared, but Medtronic 
did not, claiming the California TRO prohibited it from appearing.  After a 
telephone conversation with the Minnesota judge, however, the Los Angeles 
County Superior Court lifted the TRO temporarily to allow Medtronic to 
participate in settlement negotiations in Minnesota and in California.  The 
negotiations were unsuccessful. 
After additional procedural motions, Medtronic filed a petition for writ of 
mandate in the Second District Court of Appeal, seeking to continue trial to May 
2001.  The Court of Appeal stayed the trial (and later stayed all proceedings), 
issued an order to show cause, and set the matter for hearing. 
                                             
 
4  
In a published opinion, on June 26, 2001, the Minnesota Court of Appeal 
affirmed the preliminary TRO, rejecting Stultz’s and Advanced Bionics’s 
contention that the trial court erred by failing to defer to the “first-filed” California 
action and observing that the “first-filed rule” is not intended to be applied in a 
rigid or inflexible manner.  (Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Bionics Corp. 
(Minn.Ct.App. 2001) 630 N.W.2d 438, 449-450.)  The court concluded that 
“Minnesota . . . has a strong interest in having contracts executed in this state 
enforced in accordance with the parties’ expectations.”  (Id. at p. 456.) 
 
7
The Court of Appeal considered the appeal (from the order granting the 
TRO) and the writ petition (challenging the denial of a trial continuance) together 
and issued the decision from which Medtronic seeks review.  The court held that 
(1) the trial court’s TRO was necessary and proper to protect plaintiffs’ interests 
pending final disposition of the action, and thus was properly issued; (2) 
notwithstanding the choice-of-law provision in the Agreement, the case would be 
decided under California law; and (3) because California law will apply and the 
California action was filed first, California courts should decide the dispute.  The 
Court of Appeal then denied the writ petition as moot.  This appeal followed. 
DISCUSSION 
Issuance of the TRO 
Antisuit TRO’s must be granted with restraint 
Although Medtronic acknowledges that, under certain circumstances, a 
California court has the power to issue a TRO prohibiting a party from taking 
action in a case pending in another jurisdiction that would interfere with the 
California court’s proceedings, it asserts that the Court of Appeal here erred in 
concluding that the TRO entered in this action was proper.  Medtronic claims that 
the Court of Appeal did not place sufficient emphasis on principles of judicial 
restraint and comity that strongly inform against issuance of the TRO in this case.   
We recognize this is a case of first impression, but note that nearly 100 
years ago, this court observed that “[t]he courts of this state have the same power 
to restrain persons within the state from prosecuting actions in either domestic or 
foreign jurisdictions which courts of equity have elsewhere.”  (Spreckels v. 
Hawaiian Com. etc. Co. (1897) 117 Cal. 377, 378 (Spreckels).)  Spreckels then 
identified the circumstances under which a trial court is statutorily prohibited from 
issuing an order restraining litigation in another forum. 
 
8
Spreckels reversed a California trial court order restraining the defendant 
from further prosecuting an action he had commenced in the Republic of Hawaii 
(which did not become United States territory until 1898).  (Spreckels, supra, 117 
Cal. at pp. 378-380.)  The court based its holding on the fact that the Hawaii action 
was pending when the California action seeking a TRO commenced.  The court 
relied on Civil Code section 3423, which remains substantially the same in 
substance today as it was in 1897, and which specifies the circumstances when a 
court may not grant a TRO:  “(a) To stay a judicial proceeding pending at the 
commencement of the action in which the injunction is demanded, unless the 
restraint is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings.  [¶]  (b) To stay 
proceedings in a court of the United States.  [¶]  (c) To stay proceedings in another 
state upon a judgment of a court of that state. . . .”  Spreckels rejected the 
plaintiffs’ contention that subdivision (a) was limited to California courts, 
concluding that it was intended as a comprehensive statement of the entire law 
upon the subject because it was included in part I of the fourth division of the 
Civil Code.  (Spreckels, supra, 117 Cal. at pp. 379-380.) 
Under the Spreckels rule and Civil Code section 3423, therefore, the rule 
barring injunctive orders in specific instances is inapplicable here.  Although 
Spreckels recognized that a California court might have power to issue a TRO to 
prevent multiple proceedings, and implicitly recognized a forum court’s power to 
restrain proceedings, the court never suggested, implicitly or otherwise, that a 
court may ignore additional proceedings that arise after the initial action 
commences.  The significant principles of judicial restraint and comity inform that 
we should use that power sparingly. 
Several sister state decisions guide our reasoning.  These decisions hold 
that even if a sister state applies different substantive law than the forum state, that 
fact alone does not justify the issuance of a TRO enjoining proceedings in the 
 
9
sister state.  The Texas Supreme Court has observed that a single parallel 
proceeding in a foreign forum does not constitute a “multiplicity of suits.”  
(Golden Rule Ins. Co. v. Harper (Tex. 1996) 925 S.W.2d 649, 651.)  Arpels v. 
Arpels (1960) 8 N.Y.2d 339, 341, held that the use of injunctive relief “to prohibit 
a person from resorting to a foreign court is a power rarely and sparingly 
employed, for its exercise represents a challenge, albeit an indirect one, to the 
dignity and authority of that tribunal.”  (See also Pfaff v. Chrysler Corp. (1992) 
155 Ill.2d 35, 43 [court’s equity powers must be invoked with great restraint to 
avoid conflicts and reciprocal interference with jurisdiction]; Gannon v. Payne 
(Tex. 1986) 706 S.W.2d 304, 306 [power to enjoin proceedings pending in a 
foreign jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly and under special circumstances 
only].)  Medtronic therefore claims that under the judicial restraint principle, if 
restraining orders are permissible, they must be used only in the most exceptional 
circumstances, when parallel in personam actions are at stake and “it is necessary 
for one court to take control of the litigation to ensure an orderly and just 
resolution.”  (St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Mentor Corp. (Minn.Ct.App. 
1993) 503 N.W.2d 511, 516.) 
It is true, as Stultz and Advanced Bionics observe, that certain California 
cases have recognized that “Where there exists two or more actions involving the 
same subject matter or the same facts or principles, [a TRO] is necessary to 
prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings.”  (Rynsburger v. Dairymen’s 
Fertilizer Coop., Inc. (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 269, 279; see Green v. Superior 
Court (1951) 37 Cal.2d 307, 311; see also, e.g., Code Civ. Proc., § 526, subd. 
(a)(1), (3), & (6) [pending litigation may be enjoined to prevent a multiplicity of 
judicial proceedings and for other unrelated reasons].)  The above decisions, 
however, sought to avoid an “unseemly conflict” that might arise between 
California courts if they were free to make contradictory awards.  (Green, supra, 
 
10
37 Cal.2d at p. 311; Rynsburger, supra, 266 Cal.App.2d at p. 279.)  When the 
cases involve different states, as in the matter before us, judicial restraint takes on 
a more fundamental importance.  The possibility that one action may lead to a 
judgment first and then be applied as res judicata in another action “is a natural 
consequence of parallel proceedings in courts with concurrent jurisdiction, and not 
reason for an injunction.”  (Auerbach v. Frank (D.C. 1996) 685 A.2d 404, 407.)  
“[T]he possibility of an ‘embarrassing race to judgment’ or potentially inconsistent 
adjudications does not outweigh the respect and deference owed to independent 
foreign proceedings.”  (Ibid.)   
Stultz and Advanced Bionics also contend that although we should pay 
deference to foreign state proceedings, California’s strong public policy against 
noncompetition agreements under section 16600 weighs against allowing the 
action to proceed in Minnesota and provides the exceptional circumstance that 
warrants our upholding the California court’s TRO.  As they observe, the law 
protects Californians, and ensures “that every citizen shall retain the right to 
pursue any lawful employment and enterprise of their choice.”  (Metro Traffic 
Control, Inc. v. Shadow Traffic Network (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 853, 859.)  It 
protects “the important legal right of persons to engage in businesses and 
occupations of their choosing.”  (Morlife, Inc. v. Perry (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 
1514, 1520.)  We have even called noncompetition agreements illegal.  (See, e.g., 
Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 
123, fn. 12.)  Therefore, according to Stultz and Advanced Bionics, because the 
noncompetition provision in the Agreement is broad in application and forbids 
Stultz from working for any competitor on a competitive product for two years 
 
11
after employment termination, it is likely that a California court would conclude 
the provision is void under section 16600.5 
We agree that California has a strong interest in protecting its employees 
from noncompetition agreements under section 16600.  But even assuming a 
California court might reasonably conclude that the contractual provision at issue 
here is void in this state, this policy interest does not, under these facts, justify 
issuance of a TRO against the parties in the Minnesota court proceedings.  A 
parallel action in a different state presents sovereignty concerns that compel 
California courts to use judicial restraint when determining whether they may 
properly issue a TRO against parties pursuing an action in a foreign jurisdiction. 
The comity principle also supports our conclusion.  Comity is based on the 
belief  “ ‘ “that the laws of a state have no force, proprio vigore, beyond its 
territorial limits, but the laws of one state are frequently permitted by the courtesy 
of another to operate in the latter for the promotion of justice, where neither that 
state nor its citizens will suffer any inconvenience from the application of the 
foreign law.  This courtesy, or comity, is established, not only from motives of 
respect for the laws and institutions of the foreign countries, but from 
considerations of mutual utility and advantage.” ’  . . . ‘The mere fact that state 
action may have repercussions beyond state lines is of no judicial significance so 
long as the action is not within that domain which the Constitution forbids.’ ”  
(Estate of Lund (1945) 26 Cal.2d 472, 489; see also Gannon v. Payne, supra, 706 
                                             
 
5  
Because we conclude the California court improperly issued the TRO, we 
do not address the trade secrets issues raised in the parties’ briefs.  We also deny, 
as inapplicable to our analysis and decision, the request for judicial notice Stultz 
and Advanced Bionics submitted, that includes evidence of legislative intent in 
drafting the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.  (Evid. Code, § 459.) 
 
12
S.W.2d at p. 308 [involving parallel actions in Canada and Texas].)  The comity 
principle requires that we exercise our power to enjoin parties in a foreign court 
sparingly, in line with the policy of judicial restraint discussed above. 
Notwithstanding comity principles, Advanced Bionics contends that the 
first filed rule provides alternative support for the Court of Appeal’s decision to 
uphold the TRO and to enjoin the litigants from proceeding in Minnesota.  We 
disagree.  The first filed rule in California means that when two courts of the same 
sovereignty have concurrent jurisdiction, the first to assume jurisdiction over a 
particular subject matter of a particular controversy takes it exclusively, and the 
second court should not thereafter assert control over that subject matter.  The first 
filed rule “was never meant to apply where the two courts involved are not courts 
of the same sovereignty.  [Citation.]  Restraining a party from pursuing an action 
in a court of foreign jurisdiction involves delicate questions of comity and 
therefore ‘requires that such action be taken only with care and great restraint.’ ”  
(Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinea v. Ins. Co. of N. Am. (3d Cir. 1981) 651 F.2d 
877, 887, fn. 10.) 
We conclude, therefore, that the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the 
TRO issued against the parties in the Minnesota proceedings.  California courts 
have the same power as other courts to issue orders that assist in protecting their 
jurisdiction.  However, enjoining proceedings in another state requires an 
exceptional circumstance that outweighs the threat to judicial restraint and comity 
principles.  As explained, the circumstances of this case do not provide sufficient 
 
13
justification to warrant our court’s issuing injunctive orders against parties 
pursuing the Minnesota litigation.6 
CONCLUSION 
We hold that the trial court improperly issued the TRO enjoining Medtronic 
from proceeding in the Minnesota action.  We also conclude, however, that the 
Minnesota action does not divest California of jurisdiction, and Advanced Bionics 
remains free to litigate the California action unless and until Medtronic 
demonstrates to the Los Angeles County Superior Court that any Minnesota 
judgment is binding on the parties.  As stated above, potentially conflicting 
judgments naturally result from parallel proceedings but do not provide a reason 
for issuing a TRO.  (Ante, at pp. 9-10.)  For these reasons, we reverse the Court of 
Appeal judgment and remand for additional proceedings consistent with this 
conclusion. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHIN, J. 
 
                                             
 
6 
Advanced Bionics also contends that the choice-of-law analysis in Nedlloyd 
Lines B.V. v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.4th 459, 466, footnote 6, supports 
application of California law to the facts of this case and provides alternative 
support for the Court of Appeal’s decision to uphold the antisuit TRO.  Because 
we have determined that the court improperly upheld the TRO against the 
Minnesota proceedings, we do not reach the choice-of-law issue here. 
 
14
WE CONCUR: 
 
GEORGE, C.J. 
KENNARD, J. 
BAXTER, J. 
WERDEGAR, J. 
1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CONCURRING OPINION BY BROWN, J. 
 
 
I agree with most of Justice Moreno’s concurrence.  Specifically, I agree 
with him that the majority has not sufficiently explained its reasons for deferring 
to principles of comity in this case, and therefore its opinion gives insufficient 
guidance to lower courts.  (Conc. opn. of Moreno, J., post, at p. 1.)  I do not, 
however, agree with the implication in Justice Moreno’s opinion that a choice-of-
law analysis is irrelevant to determining whether to enjoin parties from litigating a 
dispute in a foreign jurisdiction.  (Id. at p. 12.)  If a careful choice-of-law analysis 
indicates that the foreign jurisdiction’s law applies to the parties’ dispute, I think 
that fact weighs heavily in favor of permitting the foreign proceeding to go 
forward unimpeded. 
This case involves a contract dispute between Medtronic, Inc. (Medtronic), 
a Minnesota corporation, and Mark Stultz, a former Medtronic employee who 
worked for Medtronic in Minnesota and, at that time, resided in Minnesota.  The 
parties executed the employment contract in Minnesota, and the choice-of-law 
provision in the contract designates Minnesota law.  Under the terms of the 
contract, Stultz agreed not to work for a competitor of Medtronic for two years 
after termination of his employment with Medtronic, and that provision is 
enforceable under Minnesota law, though not under California law.  California had 
absolutely no interest in this matter until Stultz relocated to California, terminated 
his employment with Medtronic, and began employment with Advanced Bionics 
2 
Corporation, a Delaware corporation with headquarters in California.  Under these 
circumstances, where almost all the geographic points of contact in the dispute lie 
in Minnesota, California’s concededly strong interest in promoting competition by 
encouraging the free movement of personnel laterally across an industry is not 
“ ‘materially greater’ ” than Minnesota’s countervailing interest in enforcing 
bargained-for restrictions on that free movement.  (Nedlloyd Lines B.V. v. Superior 
Court (1992) 3 Cal.4th 459, 466.)  Therefore, the contract’s choice-of-law 
provision, designating Minnesota law, controls.  (Ibid.)  Stultz, having enjoyed the 
benefits of his contract with Medtronic, should not be free to avoid his side of the 
agreement and thereby cancel some of the value for which Medtronic legitimately 
bargained. 
I can think of several contexts in which a person might relocate to 
California but remain obligated under contracts entered into in the place of his or 
her former residence.  California courts cannot then reach out and nullify those 
foreign obligations simply because the same obligations, if entered into here, 
would run afoul of important California policies.  California government is, of 
course, free to make policy choices for California (subject to constitutional 
limitations), but we cannot also tell our sister states how they should govern.  
Choice of law is not, therefore, simply a matter “ ‘of determining which 
conflicting law manifest[s] the “better” or the “worthier” social policy,’ ” because 
doing so would fail to recognize that, in a federal system, “ ‘states are empowered 
to mold their policies as they wish,’ ” and therefore either state’s policy is equally 
valid as representing the choice of a coequal sovereign.  (Offshore Rental Co. v. 
Continental Oil Co. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 157, 165.)  For this reason, choice of law 
requires a fair assessment of a jurisdiction’s interests in a dispute, not an 
assessment of how right the jurisdiction’s policy is.  This point is particularly 
important because courts have a natural bias favoring the law of the state in which 
3 
they sit, and litigants are aware of this bias, explaining in part the procedural 
maneuvering and forum shopping that occurred here.  If we permit California 
courts to apply California law to a dispute like the one at issue here, then 
California’s economic strength gives rise to a kind of political imperialism, 
absorbing every state into the California legal ethos. 
Relocating to California may be, for some people, a chance for a fresh start 
in life, but it is not a chance to walk away from valid contractual obligations, 
claiming California policy as a protective shield.  We are not a political safe zone 
vis-à-vis our sister states, such that the mere act of setting foot on California soil 
somehow releases a person from the legal duties our sister states recognize.  
Rather, we give full faith and credit to the laws of our sister states, and in a case 
such as this one, I think doing so requires California courts to apply Minnesota 
law.  Moreover, that conclusion is highly relevant to determining whether the trial 
court’s antisuit injunction in this case was appropriate.  I see no reason for a trial 
court to enjoin parties from litigating in a foreign jurisdiction when the foreign 
jurisdiction’s law applies to the dispute and therefore the task of the California 
courts will ultimately be to discern how the enjoined proceeding would have come 
out. 
For the reasons stated in Justice Moreno’s concurrence, supplemented by 
the additional points made here, I concur. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BROWN, J. 
1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CONCURRING OPINION BY MORENO, J. 
 
I agree with the majority that the trial court improperly enjoined Medtronic 
from pursuing its action in Minnesota.  The majority concludes that the trial 
court’s temporary restraining order (TRO) was improper under notions of judicial 
restraint and comity.  I write separately to explain why I believe these notions of 
judicial restraint and comity should apply in this case and also to discuss, more 
generally, what I consider to be the appropriate criteria for issuing antisuit 
injunctions. 
The majority recognizes California’s interest in protecting employees from 
noncompetition agreements, yet it concludes that “this policy interest does not, 
under these facts, justify issuance of a TRO against the parties in the Minnesota 
court proceedings.”  (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 11.)  The majority explains that “[a] 
parallel action in a different state presents sovereignty concerns that compel 
California courts to use judicial restraint when determining whether they may 
properly issue a TRO against parties pursuing an action in a foreign jurisdiction.”  
(Maj. opn., ante, at p. 11.)  Since there will always be sovereignty concerns when 
parallel actions are proceeding in two different states, I write separately to explain 
why I believe that an antisuit injunction is inappropriate in this case 
notwithstanding California’s public policy interest against noncompetition 
agreements.   
2 
Comity has been described as a “complex and elusive concept.”  (Laker 
Airways v. Sabena, Belgian World Airlines (D.C. Cir. 1984) 731 F.2d 909, 937 
(Laker Airways); see Philips Medical Sys. Int’l V.V. v. Buretman (7th Cir. 1994) 8 
F.3d 600, 604 [describing comity as “a traditional, although in the nature of things 
a rather vague, consideration in the exercise of equitable discretion”].)  In the 
issues presented for review in this case, Medtronic asserts that “[t]his court has not 
examined the criteria for issuing antisuit injunctions since 1897.”  (Citing 
Spreckels v. Hawaiian Com. Etc. Co. (1897) 117 Cal. 377 (Spreckels).)  Since this 
issue is now squarely before us, I believe it is necessary for us to explain what 
criteria should be used in determining when a court of this state should issue an 
antisuit injunction. 
I.   
State courts have the power to issue antisuit injunctions; they can restrain 
litigants from proceeding in suits brought in a sister state or in a foreign nation.  
(Spreckles, supra, 117 Cal. at p. 378; Pffaf v. Chrysler Corp. (1993) 155 Ill.2d 35, 
43 [610 N.E.2d 51, 54] (Pfaff); Gannon v. Payne (Tex. 1986) 706 S.W.2d 304, 
306.)   
State courts typically issue antisuit injunctions only in exceptional 
circumstances, but the state courts employ various different tests to determine 
whether an antisuit injunction is appropriate.  Texas, for example, enjoins foreign 
suits “sparingly, and only in very special circumstances.”  (Christensen v. Integrity 
Insurance Co. (Tex. 1986) 719 S.W.2d 161, 163.)  Texas courts apply a four-part 
test to determine whether an antisuit injunction is appropriate: “1) to address a 
threat to the court’s jurisdiction; 2) to prevent the evasion of important public 
policy; 3) to prevent a multiplicity of suits; or 4) to protect a party from vexatious 
or harassing litigation.”   (Golden Rule Ins. Co. v. Harper (Tex. 1996) 925 S.W.2d 
649, 651 (Golden Rule), citing Gannon v. Payne, supra, 706 S.W.2d at p. 307.) 
3 
In Illinois, a foreign action can be restrained if it “will result in fraud or 
gross wrong or oppression; a clear equity must be presented requiring the 
interposition of the court to prevent manifest wrong and injustice.”  (Pfaff, supra, 
610 N.E.2d at p. 61.)  An antisuit injunction is not issued “merely because of 
inconvenience or simultaneous, duplicative litigation, or where a litigant simply 
wishes to avail himself of more favorable law.”  (Id. at p. 62.)  Further, the mere 
fact that a party filing in another state might benefit from a more favorable law 
does not mean that the party has “avoided or defeated the laws of Illinois so as to 
require equitable interposition.”  (Id. at p. 65.)   Illinois courts inquire whether the 
jurisdiction of the Illinois trial court is threatened, and whether the litigant has 
“avoided or defeated the laws of Illinois” by filing suit in a sister state.  (Ibid.) 
Similarly, in New York, the use of injunctive power to restrain litigation in 
a foreign court is “rarely and sparingly employed, for its exercise represents a 
challenge, albeit an indirect one, to the dignity and authority of that tribunal.  
Accordingly, an injunction will be granted only if there is danger of fraud or gross 
wrong being perpetrated on the foreign court.”  (Arpels v. Arpels (1960) 8 N.Y.2d 
339, 341 [170 N.E. 670, 671].)1 
II. 
“The state law standards for interstate injunctions are often similar to those 
for international injunctions, and the authoritative cases tend to be used 
interchangeably.”  (George, Parallel Litigation (1999) 51 Baylor L.Rev. 769, 
                                             
 
1 Based on our research, it appears that the Minnesota Supreme Court has not 
addressed the standards for issuing antisuit injunctions.  A lower court has held 
that a Minnesota court could enjoin parallel litigation proceeding in Texas, based 
on the substantial similarity of the cases and the first filed status of the Minnesota 
case.  (First State Insurance Co. v. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co. 
(Minn.Ct.App. 1995) 535 N.W.2d 684, 689.) 
4 
840.)  Since state courts consider the same criteria for deciding whether to issue 
both intrastate and international injunctions, it is understandable that some state 
courts have looked to, and incorporated, the standards established by federal 
courts to determine when a federal court may enjoin a proceeding in a foreign 
nation.  (See, e.g., Gannon v. Payne, supra, 706 S.W. at p. 307, citing Laker 
Airways, supra, 731 F.2d 909; and Seattle Totems Hockey Club v. Nat'l. Hockey 
League (9th Cir. 1981) 652 F.2d 852 (Seattle Totems Hockey Club), cert. denied 
sub nom. Northwest Sports Enterprises v. Seattle Totems Hockey Club (1982) 457 
U.S. 1105.)   
Another reason that state courts have looked to federal law is that federal 
law is fairly well developed in the area of foreign antisuit injunctions.  Two 
competing views have emerged: one view, deemed the “liberal approach,” looks to 
whether the foreign suit involves similar parties and issues; the other view, 
described as the “restrictive approach,” considers whether issuing an antisuit 
injunction would offend notions of international comity.  (Compare Kaepa, Inc. v. 
Achilles Corp. (5th Cir. 1996) 76 F.3d 624 with China Trade & Development v. 
M.V. Choong Yong (2d Cir. 1987) 837 F.2d 33 (China Trade).) 
The Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals have adopted, or 
“incline[d] toward” the liberal approach.  (Philips Medical Sys. Int’l V.V. v. 
Buretman, supra, 8 F.3d at p. 605 [7th Cir.]; see Kaepa, Inc. v. Achilles Corp., 
supra, 76 F.3d 624 [5th Cir.]; Allendale Mutual Ins. v. Bull Data Sys. (7th Cir. 
1993) 10 F.3d 425; Seattle Totems Hockey Club, supra, 652 F.2d 852 [9th Cir.]; In 
re Unterweser Reederei (5th Cir. 1970) 428 F.2d 888, revd. on other grounds sub 
nom. M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore (1972) 407 U.S. 1.) 
Under the liberal approach, a duplication of the parties and issues, alone, is 
generally sufficient to justify the issuance of an antisuit injunction.  (See, e.g., 
Seattle Totems Hockey Club, supra, 652 F.2d at p. 856.)  Courts following this 
5 
approach consider vexatiousness or oppressiveness in a race to judgment in the 
foreign forum as sufficient grounds to issue an antisuit injunction.  As the Fifth 
Circuit stated, “a district court does not abuse its discretion by issuing an antisuit 
injunction when it has determined ‘that allowing simultaneous prosecution of the 
same action in a foreign forum thousands of miles away would result in 
“inequitable hardship” and “tend to frustrate and delay the speedy and efficient 
determination of the cause.” ’  [Citations.]”  (Kaepa, Inc. v. Achilles Corp., supra, 
76 F.3d at p. 627.)   
In contrast, the District of Columbia, Second, Third, Sixth, and possibly the 
Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeals have adopted the restrictive approach, which 
places a greater emphasis on international comity.  (Stonington Partners, Inc. v. 
Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V. (3rd Cir. 2002) 310 F.3d 118 
(Stonington Partners); General Electric Co. v. Deutz Ag (3rd Cir. 2001) 270 F.3d 
144; Gau Shan v. Bankers Trust (6th Cir. 1992) 956 F.2d 1349 (Gau Shan); Sea 
Containers v. Stena AB (D.C. Cir. 1989) 890 F.2d 1205; China Trade, supra, 837 
F.2d 33 [2d Cir.]; Laker Airways, supra, 731 F.2d 909 [D.C. Cir.]; Mutual Service 
Casualty Insurance Co. v. Frit Industries, Inc. (M.D. Ala. 1992) 805 F.Supp. 919, 
921, affd. (11th Cir. 1993) 3 F.3d 442.)   
The circuits that follow the restrictive approach “hold that the only proper 
grounds to grant a foreign antisuit injunction are: 1) to protect the forum’s 
jurisdiction, or 2) to prevent evasion of the forum’s important public policies.”  
(Gau Shan, supra, 956 F.2d at p. 1354; see Laker Airways, supra, 731 F.2d at p. 
927.)   These circuits maintain that the mere duplication of parties and issues is not 
a sufficient basis for the issuance of an antisuit injunction.  They reason that 
“[f]actors such as ‘vexatiousness’ or ‘oppressiveness’ and a ‘race to judgment’ are 
‘likely to be present whenever parallel actions are proceeding concurrently’ ” and 
6 
therefore are not sufficient grounds for issuance of an antisuit injunction.  (Gau 
Shan, supra, 956 F.2d at p. 1355.)   
Courts applying the restrictive approach stress comity, rather than concerns 
about duplication and a race to judgment, in deciding whether to issue an antisuit 
injunction.  As the Sixth Circuit stated, “[a]ntisuit injunctions . . . deny foreign 
courts the right to exercise their proper jurisdiction.  Such action conveys the 
message, intended or not, that the issuing court has so little confidence in the 
foreign court’s ability to adjudicate a given dispute fairly and efficiently that it is 
unwilling even to allow the possibility.”  (Gau Shan, supra, 956 F.2d at p. 1355.)  
As a result, “[c]omity dictates that foreign antisuit injunctions be issued sparingly 
and only in the rarest of cases.”  (Id. at p. 1354.) 
III. 
In determining which criteria courts of this state should apply when 
deciding whether to issue an antisuit injunction, I agree with the majority that 
considerations of comity and judicial restraint should be paramount.  Therefore, I 
would adopt a test that emphasizes these considerations.  While the state courts 
have employed various standards for determining when an antisuit injunction is 
appropriate, it is in the federal context where these standards have been most fully 
explored.   
The liberal approach favored by some federal circuit courts does not give 
sufficient attention to concerns of comity; under this approach, it is simply enough 
to show that there is parallel litigation in a foreign forum causing “ ‘an absurd 
duplication of effort’ [which] would result in unwarranted inconvenience, 
expense, and vexation.”  (Kaepa, Inc. v. Achilles Corp., supra, 76 F.3d at p. 627, 
fn. omitted.)   Unlike the liberal approach, the restrictive approach followed by 
other circuit courts finds that “the possibility of an ‘embarrassing race to 
judgment’ or potentially inconsistent adjudications does not outweigh the respect 
7 
and deference owed to independent foreign proceedings.”  (Laker Airways, supra, 
731 F.2d at pp. 928-929, fn. omitted.)  The restrictive approach is clearly more 
protective of the principles of comity and judicial restraint.  In deciding what 
criteria courts of this state should use for issuing antisuit injunctions, I would 
therefore adopt the restrictive approach.   
Under this approach, courts should only issue antisuit injunctions in two 
situations: if “necessary to protect the jurisdiction of the enjoining court, or to 
prevent the litigant’s evasion of the important public policies of the forum.”  
(Laker Airways, supra, 731 F.2d at p. 927.)  The circuits that follow the restrictive 
approach “have interpreted these exceptions narrowly.”  (Stonington Partners, 
supra, 310 F.3d at p. 127.)  As I explain below, neither of these exceptions apply 
in this case. 
A. 
Protecting Jurisdiction 
In Laker Airways, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
approved an antisuit injunction where the foreign defendants had initiated the 
foreign proceeding for the “sole purpose of terminating the United States claim” 
and where the foreign court had enjoined the parties from pursuing the United 
States action.  (Laker Airways, supra, 731 F.2d at p. 915.)  The foreign court was 
“not following a parallel track but attempt[ed] to carve out exclusive jurisdiction 
over concurrent actions.”  (Id. at p. 930.)  In such a case, in which the foreign 
proceedings were “solely designed to rob the court of its jurisdiction,” an antisuit 
injunction was necessary to protect the forum’s jurisdiction.  (Id. at p. 931.) 
While Laker Airways presented a situation in which the jurisdiction of the 
forum state was in fact threatened, “[s]uch threats to a court’s jurisdiction . . . are 
quite unusual.”  (Gau Shan, supra, 956 F.2d at p. 1356.)  Typically, only two 
scenarios threaten a court’s jurisdiction.  The first is when the concurrent 
proceedings are in rem or quasi in rem.  (China Trade, supra, 837 F.2d at p. 36.)  
8 
In such a case, jurisdiction is based on the presence of property within the court’s 
jurisdictional boundaries.  A concurrent proceeding in another jurisdiction 
presents the danger that the foreign court will order the property transferred out of 
the jurisdictional boundaries of the first court, thereby depriving it of jurisdiction 
over the matter.  The second scenario was presented in Laker Airways.  In that 
case, a foreign court in an in personam action was attempting to carve out 
exclusive jurisdiction over the matter.  In such a case, “an injunction may . . . also 
be necessary to protect the enjoining court’s jurisdiction.”  (China Trade, supra, 
837 F.2d at p. 36.) 
Circuits that have followed the restrictive approach have held that the 
possibility that a foreign court may favor the party filing the foreign suit is not a 
threat to the jurisdiction of the United States courts.  (Gau Shan, supra, 956 F.2d 
at p. 1356.)  Even “the possibility that a ruling of a foreign court might eventually 
result in the voluntary dismissal of the claim before the United States court” does 
not threaten the United States court’s jurisdiction.  (Ibid.) 
In the present case, the parallel proceeding initiated by Medtronic in 
Minnesota does not threaten the jurisdiction of the California courts.  At the time 
when the California court issued the TRO at issue here, enjoining Medtronic 
“from taking any action whatsoever, other than in this Court,” the Minnesota court 
had issued a preliminary injunction restricting Stultz’s activities as an Advanced 
Bionics employee but not restraining the parties from pursuing other litigation.  
After the California court issued the antisuit TRO, the Minnesota court revised its 
preliminary injunction.  Notably, however, the Minnesota court did not enjoin the 
action from proceeding in a California court; instead, the Minnesota injunction 
was defensive; it enjoined the parties “from obtaining relief in another court that 
would effectively stay or limit [the Minnesota] action.”  Whereas the foreign 
proceedings in Laker Airways were “solely designed to rob the court of its 
9 
jurisdiction” and the foreign court attempted to carve out exclusive jurisdiction, 
the Minnesota injunction did not seek to terminate the litigation in California, but 
was instituted merely to protect the jurisdiction of the Minnesota court.  (Laker 
Airways, supra, 731 F.2d at p. 931.)  Further, as courts applying the restrictive 
approach have held, the possibility that Medtronic may receive a more favorable 
ruling in a Minnesota court does not threaten the jurisdiction of a California court.  
(Gau Shan, supra, 956 F.2d at p. 1356.)  
B. 
Evading Public Policies  
 
“Few cases have addressed a situation in which an anti-suit injunction has 
been appropriately entered to protect important public policy, but the courts that 
take a restrictive approach have referenced this exception as being narrowly 
drawn.”  (Stonington Partners, supra, 310 F.3d at p. 127.)  “[O]nly the evasion of 
the most compelling public policies of the forum will support the issuance of an 
antisuit injunction.”  (Gau Shan, supra, 956 F.2d at p. 1358.)   
 
Here, Stultz and Advanced Bionics, as well as several amici curiae, argue 
that California has a fundamental interest in protecting its employees from 
noncompetition agreements under Business and Professions Code section 16600.2  
They contend that allowing the parallel suit to proceed in Minnesota would 
undermine California’s strong public policy interest.   
Contrary to the arguments of Stultz and Advanced Bionics, however, the 
public policy exception does not allow for an injunction merely because two states 
may apply different substantive laws.  “If any advantage in law was sufficient to 
justify application of the public policy exception, antisuit injunctions would 
become common and . . . comity a consideration of secondary importance.  
                                             
 
2 All statutory references are to the Business and Professions Code unless 
otherwise stated. 
10 
Procedural or substantive advantages offered by the forum law do not, of 
themselves, provide grounds for an antisuit injunction.”  (Gau Shan, supra, 956 
F.2d at p. 1357.)   
Even the possibility that the party filing in a sister state may benefit 
favorably from an application of that state’s law does not necessarily constitute an 
evasion of the forum state’s public policies.  The Supreme Court of Illinois, for 
example, has held that Illinois law was not avoided or defeated in a case where 
“Chrysler may benefit from a liberal interpretation by a Michigan court of 
Michigan’s law” and similar claims had already been dismissed without prejudice 
in Illinois.  (Pfaff, supra, 610 N.E.2d at p. 65.)  The court held that while a party 
may gain by filing suit in a sister state, “that gain alone does not mean that [the 
party filing in the forum state] has suffered a manifest wrong and injustice.”  
(Ibid.)  In addition, the possibility that a sister state may apply and enforce a 
different law is merely speculative and is present “whenever courts have 
concurrent jurisdiction.”  (China Trade, supra, 837 F.2d at p. 37.) 
 
The crucial determination is whether the suit was filed in another state for 
the purpose of evading the important policies of the forum state.  Such a purpose 
may be inferred, for example, if neither party has ties to the sister state in which a 
parallel suit has been initiated.  Courts have found that a party’s connection to the 
foreign jurisdiction minimizes the possibility that such a suit was filed for 
purposes of evading the forum state’s law.  For example, the Sixth Circuit found 
that the purpose of filing suit in Hong Kong was not to evade the policies of 
Tennessee, since one of the parties was a Hong Kong corporation and its assets 
were located there.  (Gau Shan, supra, 956 F.2d at p. 1358.)  Also, in Arpels v. 
Arpels, the New York Court of Appeal found that the filing of parallel divorce 
proceedings in France was appropriate based on the fact that the parties were 
married in France, lived there for several years, maintained a home there after 
11 
moving to New York, and possibly were still citizens of France.  (Arpels v. Arpels, 
supra, 207 N.Y.S.2d at p. 342.) 
 
Similarly, courts have held that the identity of the so-called evading party is 
relevant in determining whether the purpose of the parallel litigation was to evade 
the laws of the forum state.  (Laker Airways, supra, 731 F.2d at pp. 931-932.)   
Courts have granted an antisuit injunction in cases in which the litigants are both 
residents of the state in which the injunction is sought, and one resident is seeking 
to evade the law of the common domicile in order to gain an inequitable advantage 
over the other.  In Cole v. Cunningham (1890) 133 U.S. 107, 119, the United 
States Supreme Court affirmed a Massachusetts decree enjoining prosecution of a 
New York action, in which Massachusetts creditors prosecuted attachment suits 
against a Massachusetts debtor in New York to avoid Massachusetts insolvency 
laws.  The Court stated that the rule allowing courts to enjoin those over which 
they have jurisdiction “has been often applied by the courts of the domicile against 
the attempts of some of its citizens to defeat the operation of its laws, to the wrong 
and injury of others.”  (Ibid.)   
 
Further, an evasive purpose might also be inferred if the foreign suit is 
initiated contrary to the dictates of a forum selection clause.  If the foreign suit is 
filed in adherence to the forum selection clause, however, an evasive purpose is 
less likely.  For example, in Kirby v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company (N.D. 
Ga. 1999) 71 F.Supp.2d 1363, 1371, the court found that there was no evidence 
from which to infer that the party filing suit in Australia was evading the public 
policies of the forum, based in large part on the forum selection clauses in the 
applicable contracts, selecting Australia as the forum of choice.   
 
In the present case, the issue is not simply whether California has a strong 
public policy against noncompetition agreements.  Instead, the question is whether 
Medtronic initiated its action in Minnesota for the purpose of evading California’s 
12 
public policy.  Based on the facts of this case, I conclude that Medtronic did not 
institute its suit in Minnesota to evade California law.  Medtronic is a Minnesota 
corporation.  Medtronic entered into an employment contract with Stultz, a 
Minnesota resident, in Minnesota.  The contract contained a choice-of-law 
provision that stated: “The validity, enforceability, construction and interpretation 
of this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the state in which the 
Employee was last employed by Medtronic.”  Stultz worked for Medtronic’s 
Minnesota office for the duration of his employment.  Based on these significant 
ties to a Minnesota forum, as well as the choice-of-law clause designating 
Minnesota as the chosen forum, I cannot conclude that Medtronic filed suit in 
Minnesota for the purpose of evading California public policy.   
 
  I therefore do not agree with the argument of Stultz and Advanced 
Bionics, as well some of the amici curiae, that the issuance of the antisuit TRO by 
the California trial court was appropriate because California law should apply to 
the action.  The Court of Appeal below reached this same conclusion, finding that 
California law should apply and therefore that the restraining order was 
appropriate to ensure that this dispute be litigated in California.  The antisuit 
injunction case law does not involve a choice-of-law type of inquiry.  A choice-of-
law analysis “is simply not a good ‘fit’ with the injunction context.”  (Stonington 
Partners, supra, 310 F.3d at p. 130.)  Here, the question is not whether California 
law should apply, but simply whether Medtronic initiated the suit in Minnesota for 
the purpose of evading California’s public policy.  Even though Medtronic may 
benefit by initiating a proceeding in Minnesota, I do not find that the purpose of 
Medtronic’s action was to evade the public policy of California.   
IV. 
 
Following the restrictive approach of the federal courts, I therefore 
conclude that this case does not fall within the exceptional circumstances in which 
13 
the issuance of an antisuit injunction is appropriate.  Medtronic has a legal right to 
proceed in Minnesota and it is entitled to avail itself of that forum.  In this case, an 
injunction is not necessary to protect the jurisdiction of the California courts, nor 
is it needed to prevent Medtronic from evading the public policy of California.  
Accordingly, I agree with the majority that the issuance of the antisuit injunction 
was inappropriate under principles of comity and judicial restraint. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MORENO, J. 
1 
See last page for addresses and telephone numbers for counsel who argued in Supreme Court. 
 
Name of Opinion Advanced Bionics Corp. v. Medtronic, Inc. 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Unpublished Opinion 
Original Appeal 
Original Proceeding 
Review Granted XXX 87 Cal.App.4th 1235 
Rehearing Granted 
 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Opinion No. S097308 
Date Filed: December 19, 2002 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Court: Superior 
County: Los Angeles 
Judge: Richard P. Kalustian 
 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Attorneys for Appellant: 
 
Horvitz & Levy, David M. Axelrad, Andrea M. Gauthier, Mary-Christine Sungaila; Robins, Kaplan, Miller 
& Ciresi, Roman M. Silberfeld, Ernest I. Reveal, Bernice Conn and Susan L. Dunbar for Defendant and 
Appellant and for Petitioner. 
 
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, John J. Swenson, Miguel A. Estrada, Georgiana G. Rodiger and Tanya M. 
Acker for Aetna, Inc., Aetna U.S. Healthcare Inc., and Aetna U.S. Healthcare of California, Inc., as Amici 
Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant and Petitioner. 
 
Mike Hatch, Attorney General (Minnesota), for State of Minnesota as Amicus Curiae on behalf of 
Defendant and Appellant and Petitioner. 
 
King & Kent, K. Andrew Kent and Gregory N. Albright for Southern California Intellectual Property 
Rights Coalition as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant and Petitioner. 
 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Attorneys for Respondent: 
 
No appearance for Respondent Superior Court. 
 
Loeb & Loeb, Fred B. Griffin, Todd M. Malynn; Feldman Gale & Weber, Michael J. Weber, James A. 
Gale; Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland and Robin Meadow for Plaintiffs and Respondents and for Real 
Parties in Interest. 
 
Donald E. Warner, Jr., for California Staffing Professionals as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and 
Respondents and Real Parties in Interest. 
 
Ronald J. Gilson as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Respondents and Real Parties in Interest. 
 
 
2 
 
 
 
 
Page 2 - S097308 - counsel continued 
 
 
Attorneys for Respondent: 
 
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Richard M. Frank, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Herschel T. Elkins, 
Assistant Attorney General, Ronald Reiter and Joseph Ragazzo, Deputy Attorneys General, as Amici 
Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Respondents and Real Parties in Interest. 
 
James P. Stoneman II for California Employment Lawyers Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of 
Plaintiffs and Respondents and Real Parties in Interest. 
 
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Ulrico S. Rosales, Tait Graves and David R. Burtt for Broadcom 
Corporation as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Respondents and Real Parties in Interest. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3 
 
 
 
 
Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion): 
 
David M. Axelrad 
Horvitz & Levy 
15760 Ventura Boulevard, 18th Floor 
Encino, CA  91436-3000 
(818) 995-3000 
 
Robin Meadow 
Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland 
5700 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 375 
Los Angeles, CA  90036 
(310) 859-7811