Mintz v. Mark Bartelstein & Associates Inc.
2012 WL 5391779
C.D. Cal.2012Background
- Mintz filed suit March 23, 2012 seeking a declaration that two Priority Sports contract provisions are unenforceable (two-year non-compete and 14 days’ termination notice).
- Defendants counterclaimed that Mintz conspired with CAA to misappropriate Priority Sports’ information, breach the contract, and interfere with relations.
- Mintz and CAA moved for summary judgment on all counterclaims or partial summary judgment on declaratory relief, CFAA, ECPA, §502, invasion, and UCL; Priority Sports moved for partial summary judgment on breach-related claims.
- Defendants allegedly retaliated by accessing Mintz’s Gmail without permission and leaking contract terms; Mintz contends this violated CFAA, ECPA, §502, and invasion of privacy.
- The court granted Mintz’s summary judgment on §502 and invasion of privacy, granted Defendants’ summary judgment on CFAA, ECPA, and all counterclaims, and denied declaratory relief and UCL as to Mintz; remaining issues were defamation, economic interference, and UCL at trial.
- The decision centers on whether the non-compete/notice are litigable, whether Mintz lacks CFAA/ECPA damages, and whether Priority Sports’ counterclaims survive, with the key holding that declaratory relief was moot, CFAA/ECPA failed, §502 and invasion succeeded for Mintz, and the counterclaims failed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Declaratory relief viability for non-compete and notice | Mintz seeks declarations invalidating the non-compete and enforcing notice. | Priority Sports asserts potential enforcement or no mootness issue. | No substantial controversy; Declaratory Judgment relief granted to Defendants. |
| CFAA standing and loss threshold | Mintz sustained a CFAA loss exceeding $5,000. | Loss requirement not met; costs were not Mintz’s personal losses. | Mintz lacks standing; CFAA claim granted to Defendants. |
| ECPA claim viability (interception/storage distinction) | Defendants intercepted and disclosed emails in violation of ECPA/SCA. | No interception occurred; emails were in storage, not transmitted. | ECPA claim fails; Defendants granted summary judgment. |
| California Penal Code § 502 violation | Defendants accessed data without permission and obtained employment terms. | No damages shown or improper use established. | § 502 claim granted to Mintz. |
| Invasion of Privacy | Unauthorized Gmail access invaded Mintz’s privacy. | No triable issue on privacy invasion. | Invasion of privacy claim granted to Mintz. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gospel Missions of America v. City of Los Angeles, 328 F.3d 548 (9th Cir. 2003) (court may grant summary judgment when issues have been fully ventilated)
- Cel–TEx Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (burden-shifting framework for summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (material fact and genuine dispute standard for summary judgment)
- Mamou v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc., 165 Cal.App.4th 686 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (duty of loyalty and at-will employment interactions; prepare-to-compete context)
- Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. 2011) (standing under UCL after Prop. 64 requires economic injury)
- Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 302 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2002) (interprets interception/storage distinctions under ECPA)
- El Dorado Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Superior Court, 190 Cal.App.3d 342 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987) (privacy interests in employment records)