Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

Dowell v. Pacesetter, Inc., No. B201439

By FindLaw Staff on November 20, 2009 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

In plaintiffs' suit against the defendant to enjoin it from enforcing noncompete and nonsolicitation clauses in employment agreements used in California, trial court's ruling that the clauses were facially void under Business and Professions Code section 16600 and that their use violated California's Unfair Competition Law and that defendant's unclean hands defense and its cross-complaint for unfair competition failed as a matter of law is affirmed where: 1) the trial court properly determined that the clauses were void as a matter of law, that no defense applied and that the cross-complaint failed to state a cause of action; and 2) trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a permanent injunction and costs   

Read Dowell v. Pacesetter, Inc., No. B201439 [HTML]

Read Dowell v. Pacesetter, Inc., No. B201439 [PDF]

Appellate Information

Filed November 19, 2009


Opinion by Judge Todd

For Appellant:  Feldman Gale, James A. Gale and Todd M. Malynn

For Appellee:  Steptoe & Johnson, Mark A. Neubauer, Rebecca Edelson and Carla A. Veltman

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard