Allworth Financial LP v. Pivato, 2:23-cv-00829

Allworth Financial (Plaintiff), an SEC-registered advisory, hired Jill Pivato as a financial advisor in 2019; Pivato resigned April 21, 2023.
Plaintiff alleges Pivato downloaded trade-secret materials (client lists, account data), then solicited Plaintiff’s clients after joining competitor Creative Planning.
On May 3, 2023 Plaintiff filed suit (DTSA, California UTSA, breach of contract, UCL) and an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order (TRO).
The TRO motion relied on declarations and later submitted screenshots and a claim of loss of at least 33 households and $40M AUM; Defendant submitted declarations saying she deleted materials and her new employer blocked use of Plaintiff’s data.
The Court denied the TRO, finding Plaintiff failed to show imminent and likely irreparable harm and therefore did not reach the other Winter factors; venue and heightened-mandatory-injunction issues were noted but not decided.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Entitlement to TRO / preliminary injunction standard	TRO needed to preserve status quo because of alleged trade-secret misappropriation and client diversion	No emergency: Defendant deleted files, employer safeguarded data, harm is speculative and compensable	Denied — Plaintiff failed to show imminent, likely irreparable harm under Winter
Likelihood of irreparable harm from trade-secret use and loss of goodwill	Misuse of trade secrets and client contacts will cause irreparable damage to reputation and client relationships; monetary damages insufficient	Alleged harms are speculative or quantifiable; past losses do not prove future risk	Denied — evidence showed past conduct but insufficient proof of a substantial risk of recurrence or non‑quantifiable harm
Request to image electronic devices / preserve evidence	Imaging required to prevent destruction and preserve proof of ongoing misappropriation	Defendant represents she deleted materials and employer implemented safeguards; no ongoing access shown	Denied as part of TRO — no urgent showing that evidence would be destroyed or that imaging was necessary for imminent harm
Venue and heightened standard for mandatory injunction	(Plaintiff did not meaningfully contest in reply)	Defendant argued improper venue and that relief sought was mandatory (heightened standard)	Court expressed concerns but declined to decide given denial on irreparable-harm grounds

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (establishes four‑part Winter test for preliminary injunctions)
Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) (sliding‑scale approach and interplay with Winter)
Herb Reed Enters., LLC v. Florida Entm’t Mgmt., Inc., 736 F.3d 1239 (9th Cir. 2013) (economic injury alone generally insufficient for irreparable harm)
Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2001) (trade‑secret misuse and irreparable harm principles)
Caribbean Marine Servs. Co. v. Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668 (9th Cir. 1988) (plaintiff must show likelihood of irreparable injury)
GoTo.com, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 202 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2000) (status quo ante litem concept for injunctions)
Univ. of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390 (1981) (purpose of preliminary injunction is to preserve parties' relative positions)