The reference to the employment relationship does not exclude the confidential relationship between independent contractors. ( Gordon v. Landau (1958), 49 Cal.2d 690 [ 321 P.2d 456]; Ingrassia v. Bailey (1959), 172 Cal.App.2d 117 [ 341 P.2d 370].) [2] (2) The Agents contend that the language of the contract specifies only that the terminated agent may no longer deal with State Farm as to its policies, not that he cannot solicit a State Farm policyholder as to insurance with another company, and that the custom of the industry supports this interpretation.
Indeed, Ms. Peterson and Ms. Taus had established themselves as members of a community of business persons and professional networkers. Both of the cases cited by Plaintiff, Ingrassia v. Bailey, 172 Cal.App.2d 117, 341 P.2d 370 (1959) and Hilb, Rogal Hamilton Ins. Services v. Robb, 33 Cal.App.4th 1812, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 887 (1995), do not stand for the propositions for which they are cited. In fact, those cases affirm that ยง 16600 provides that contracts may not prevent employees from entering into competitive enterprises.
(2) Whether a preliminary injunction shall be granted rests largely in the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed on appeal unless there is a manifest abuse of discretion. ( Ingrassia v. Bailey (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 117, 125 [ 341 P.2d 370].) b. Rights of undisclosed principal.
(3) "`Whether a preliminary injunction shall be granted rests largely in the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed on appeal unless there is a manifest abuse of discretion.'" ( Ingrassia v. Bailey (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 117, 125 [ 341 P.2d 370].) (4) However, the ultimate interpretation of a statute or administrative regulation is a question of law, and we are not bound by the trial court's determination. ( California Teachers Assn. v. San Diego Community College Dist. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 692, 699 [ 170 Cal.Rptr. 817, 621 P.2d 856]; Shoban v. Board of Trustees (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 534, 541 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 112]; Westfall v. Swoap (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 109, 114 [ 129 Cal.Rptr. 750].)
" (P. 371 [184 S.W.2d].) See Ingrassia v. Bailey (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 117, 124-125 [ 341 P.2d 370] where the lease provided that it "shall continue from month to month but may be terminated by either party at any time for cause." In Cummer v. Butts (1879) 40 Mich. 322 [29 Am.Rep. 530] which is cited both in Quick v. Southern Churchman Co., supra, and Zurich G.A. L. Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Kinsler, supra, the agreement in question provided for revocation by either party for "good cause" upon sixty days' notice.
( Family Record Plan, Inc. v. Mitchell, 172 Cal.App.2d 235, 239 [ 342 P.2d 10].) [2] "Whether a preliminary injunction shall be granted rests largely in the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed on appeal unless there is a manifest abuse of discretion." ( Isthmian S.S. Co. v. National Marine etc. Assn., 40 Cal.2d 433, 435 [ 254 P.2d 578]; Ingrassia v. Bailey, 172 Cal.App.2d 117, 125 [ 341 P.2d 370].) The injunction issued here is expressly authorized by section 3369, Civil Code. Subdivision 2 of section 3369 provides: "Any person performing or proposing to perform an act of unfair competition within this State may be enjoined in any court of competent jurisdiction."
[7] While the mere identity of the customers may not be considered confidential ( Fortna v. Martin, 158 Cal.App.2d 634 [ 323 P.2d 146]), it may become such if it contains additional and confidential information about the customers ( Western Electro-Plating Co. v. Henness, 180 Cal.App.2d 442 [ 4 Cal.Rptr. 434]; Reid v. Mass. Co., Inc., 155 Cal.App.2d 293 [ 318 P.2d 54]). [6b] Appellant himself admitted the confidential nature of the information obtained concerning the particular likes and dislikes and needs of the various customers because of his position as the manager of the linen supply service. This is the very kind of information which so often spells the difference between success and failure in a business based on service ( Ingrassia v. Bailey, 172 Cal.App.2d 117 [ 341 P.2d 370]). [8] Furthermore, the appellant, as a part of his duties of supervising the delivery routes and receiving and adjusting complaints, had many personal contacts with customers and established friendly relations with them. It is this personal acquaintance and additional influence of the friendship developed during his employment with Peerless which makes solicitation of former customers by appellant so unfair to his former employer ( Western Electro-Plating Co. v. Henness, supra; George v. Burdusis, 21 Cal.2d 153 [ 130 P.2d 399]).
" [14] The action of a trial court in granting, denying, dissolving or refusing to dissolve a permanent or preliminary injunction is a matter within its own sound discretion ( Union Interchange, Inc. v. Savage (1959) 52 Cal.2d 601 [ 342 P.2d 249]), and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a clear showing that the court abused its discretion. ( Flavio v. McKenzie (1960) 177 Cal.App.2d 274 [ 2 Cal.Rptr. 79]; Ingrassia v. Bailey (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 117 [ 341 P.2d 370].) [13b] The record discloses that the trial court acted well within the bounds prescribed.
[2] "Whether a preliminary injunction shall be granted rests largely in the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed on appeal unless there is a manifest abuse of discretion." ( Isthmian S.S. Co. v. National Marine etc. Assn., 40 Cal.2d 433, 435 [ 254 P.2d 578]; Ingrassia v. Bailey, 172 Cal.App.2d 117, 125 [ 341 P.2d 370]; Daniels v. Williams, 125 Cal.App.2d 310, 312-313 [ 270 P.2d 556].) [3] In passing on an order made on affidavits involving the decision of a question of fact, a reviewing court is bound by the same rule as where oral testimony is presented for review.
[1b] Except for that portion of the preliminary injunction just discussed, there was no abuse of discretion on the part of the court. (See Ingrassia v. Bailey, 172 Cal.App.2d 117, 125 [ 341 P.2d 370].) The paragraph of the preliminary injunction which prohibits, during the pendency of the present action, the prosecution of the earlier action pending in the Santa Monica Branch of the court is modified by adding immediately after the words "being Proceeding No. SM Civil 6700" the following "except that the said defendant Santa Monica Finance Company, a corporation, may proceed with the prosecution of its application for a default judgment in said Proceeding No. SM Civil 6700 as against Douglass V. Neale, defendant therein, only, without prejudice to the rights of Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland under its bond described in said action."