Pearson Educ., Inc. v. Alahmad

3 Citing cases

  1. BladeRoom Grp. Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc.

    219 F. Supp. 3d 984 (N.D. Cal. 2017)   Cited 3 times
    Alleging loss of goodwill is sufficient for pleading stage

    Furthermore, the fact that Bripco licensed its trade secrets to BRG, who in turn revealed that information to Facebook under the alleged protections of a non-disclosure agreement, at least implies that BRG was acting in the capacity as Bripco's agent during the transaction. See Pearson Educ., Inc. v. Alahmad , No. 2:12-cv-2936-KJM-CKD, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53991 at *15, 2013 WL 1641533 at *6 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2013) (citing Parrish v. Nat'l Football League Players Ass'n , 534 F.Supp.2d 1081, 1097 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ). Because it is still plausibly pled, Facebook's second attempt to dismiss the breach of contract claim will be denied.

  2. Technologies v. Palmer Luckey and Oculus Vr, LLC

    No. C 15-02281 WHA (N.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2016)

    That is, the exclusivity pertained to Luckey's work, not to the parties to the agreement. Defendants cite Pearson Education, Inc. v. Alahmad, 12-2936, 2013 WL 1641533, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2013) (Judge Kimberly J. Mueller), for the contention that an entity can only have standing as an undisclosed principal if the complaint alleges fact showing it was "directing the transaction." That decision held that an individual lacked standing as an undisclosed principal because the plaintiff had not adequately alleged an agency relationship.

  3. Technologies v. Palmer Luckey and Oculus Vr, LLC

    No. C 15-02281 WHA (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2016)

    That is, the exclusivity pertained to Luckey's work, not to the parties to the agreement. Defendants cite Pearson Education, Inc. v. Alahmad, 12-2936, 2013 WL 1641533, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2013) (Judge Kimberly J. Mueller), for the contention that an entity can only have standing as an undisclosed principal if the complaint alleges fact showing it was "directing the transaction." That decision held that an individual lacked standing as an undisclosed principal because the plaintiff had not adequately alleged an agency relationship.