Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Drum Circle

Drum Circle

Ratings: (0)|Views: 156|Likes:
Published by Eriq Gardner
ruling
ruling

More info:

Published by: Eriq Gardner on Jan 03, 2014
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/06/2014

pdf

text

original

 
SUPERIOR
COURT
 
C LIFORNI COUNTY
OFLOS
 NGELES
DATE
12/20/13
DEPT
WEO
HONORABLE
LISA
HART
 OLE
JUDGE
N.
LEE
DEPUTY
CLERK
S.
MIXON 
C/A
HONORABLEJUDGE
PRO
TEMELECTRONICRECORDINGMONITOR
NONE
Deputy
Sheriff
NONE
Reporter
SC118527
Plaintiff
 ounsel
HOW RD
SCOTT
KING
NO
APPEARANCES
 
Defendant
TOMMY
LEE
ET.
AL.
Counsel
NATUREOF
PRO EEDINGS 
RULING
ON
SUBMITTED
MATTER
 MOTION
OF
DEFENDANTS
MOTLEY
CRUE
INC.,
MOTLEYCRUE
TOURING 
INC.,
 ND
TOMMY
LEE
FOR
SUMM RY
JUDGMENT
OR
IN
THE
ALTERNATIVE 
SUMM RY
ADJUDICATION
TAKENUNDER
SUBMISSION
ON
12-19-13 
The
Court
rules
on
the
above
referenced
submitted
matter
as
follows:
 efendants
MSJ
is
GRANTED.
Defendants
establish
that
 1 
Plaintiffs
idea
was
not
a
trade
secret
as
he
failed
take
reasonable
stepsto
maintain
confidentiality 
including
handing
the
idea
over
to
Lee,
the
proposed
purchaser 
without
securing
an
NDA
or
any
promise
not
to
use
theideawithout
compensation;
 2 
the
drum
ring
was
independently
developed,
as
thedevelopers
 
not
have
access
to
Plaintiff’s
plan 
nor
were
thepersons
with
access
involved
in
developingthe
drum
ring;
and
 3 
Plaintiff
didnot
in
fact
submit
the
proposal
to
 efendants 
See
SSUNF
Nos.
37-38,41-43,51-52,73-82,86-88,
117-120.
Plaintiff
submits
evidence
raising
an
issue
of
fact
as
to
whether
Fisher
and
Thaler
met
with
him
regarding
the
idea
but
he
 ils
to
present
any
evidence
challenging
Defendants
showing
of
independent
development
orthe
absence
of
reasonableattemptstomaintain
confidentiality 
ANALYSIS:
Defendant
Motley
Crue
moves
for
summary
MINUTES
ENTERED
Page
 
of
13
DEPT.
WEO
12/20/13
COUNTY
 LERK
 
Breach
of
Implied
Promise
 Desny
Claim 
tIjf
the
idea
Purveyor
has
Clearly
COnditioned
his
°ffer
to
Convey
the
idea
Upon
an
c lig
 
to
pay
for
it
 
is
Used
by
theOfferee
and
the
Offeree
knowing
the
Condition
before
he
knows
the
idea
voluntarily
accepts
its
disclosure
 necessarji
on
the
specified
basis 
and
finds
it
valuable
and
uses
t 
the
law
will
either
apply
the
o je t
test
an
hold
that
the
parties
have
made
an
express
 sometimes
called
implied
in
f
contract
or
Page
2
of
13
DEPT.
WED
 JT S N
 
12/20/13
LY L RJ
SUPERIOR
COURT
OF
 LIFORNI 
COUNTY
OF
LOS
 NGELES
D TE
12/20/13
 
DEPT
WED
HONORABLE
LISA
HART
COLE
JU GE
N.
LEE
DEPUTY
 LERK
 
MIXON 
C/A
HONORABLE
JU GE
PRO
TEM
ELECTRONICRECORDINGMONITOR
 85 7ePuffNONE
 ounsel
HOW RD
SCOTTKING
NO
APPEAPCES
VS
Defendant
TOMMY
LEE
ET.
AL.
 ounsej
NATUPJ
OF
PROCEEDINGS:
 gme
on
the
entire
Complaint
or
in
the
 ltern tive
for
summ ry
 ju j
 
of
the
1st
c/a
for
misappropriation
of
tr de
secrets
and
5th
c/a
for
breach
of
implied
promise
The
1st
c/a
for
mis pprop 
and
5th
c/a
for
breach
of
implied
promise
are
the
onlyremainingcauses
of
action 
Defendant
moves
for
summary
udgm
and
adjudicati
of
each
claim
on
groun
 
that
Cl 
Defendant
did
not
have
reasOnable
P° bility
of
access
to
Kings
idea;
 2 
the
drum
ring
used
by
Defendants
is
not
su st nti lly
similar
to
King;s
Tommy
Lee
Loop
Coaster;
 3 
the
drum
ring
was
independently
created;
 4 
there
was
no
OPPortunity
to
reject
the
idea
and
therefore
no
implied
contract
could
arise 
5 
the
 oop
Coaster
is
not
a
tr de
secret 
6 
King
didnottake
reasonable
efforts
to
maintainthe
secrecy
of
his
idea;
and
 7 
Defendant
did
not
misappropriate
the
idea
 
SUPERIOR
COURT
OF
CAUFORNIA 
COUNTY
OFLOS NG L S
D TE 
12/20/13
HONORABLE
LISA
HARTCOLE
HONORABLE
NONENONE
SC 8527
Plaintiff
 ounsel
HOW RD
SCOTTKING
NO
APPEAR]NCES
 
Defendant
TO Y
LEE
ET 
AL 
ounsel
NATURE
OFPROCEEDINGS:
under
those
circumstances 
as
some
writers
view
it 
the
law
itself 
topreventfr ud
and
unjust
enrichment 
will
imply
a
promise
to
compensate
fJ]
Such
inferred
orimplied
promise,
if
 
is
to
be
found
at
all 
mustbe
based
on
circumstances
which
were
known
to
theproducer
at
and
preceding
the
time
of
disclosure
of
the
ide to
him
and
he
must
voluntarily
 ept
the
disclosure 
knowing
the
 onditions
on
which
 
tendered 
Desny
v.
Wilder
 1956 
46
Cal 2d
715,739.
The
idea
man
who
blurts
out
his
idea
withouthaving
 irst
made
his
bargain
has
no
one
but
himselfto
blame
for
the
loss
of
his
bargaining
power.
The
law
will
not
in
any
event 
from
demands
stated
subsequent
totheunconditioned
disclosure
of
an
abstract
idea 
imply
a
promise
to
pay
for
the
idea 
for
its
use 
or
for
its
previous
disclosure
The
law
will
not
imply
a
promise
to
pay
for
an
idea
from
the
mere
facts
that
theidea
hasbeenconveyed,
is
valuable 
and
hasbeen
used
for
profit;
thisis
true
even
though
the
conveyancehasbeen
made
with
the
hope
or
expectation
that
some
obligation
will
ensue ”Id 
Thus,
in
order
for
Plaintiff
torecover
on
his
5th
c/a
for
breach
of
implied
promise 
he
must
be
ableto
establish
two
facts 
First 
he
must
establish
that
he
submittedthe
Loop
Coasterideato
Defendants
for
sale 
or
in
other
words,
were
Defendants
given
accesstotheidea
conditioned
upon
MINUTES
ENTERED
Page
 
of
13
DEPT 
WEO
12/20/13
COUNTyCLERK
DEFr 
W O
N 
LEE
DEPUTY
 L RK
S 
MIXON 
C A
ELECTRONICRECORDING
MONITOR
Reporter

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->