Gordon v. Schwartz
| Decision Date | 27 December 1956 |
| Citation | 305 P.2d 117,147 Cal.App.2d 213 |
| Parties | Harry S. GORDON and David J. Williams, co-partners, doing business under the fictitious firm name and style of Independent Home Supply Co., Plaintiff and Respondent. v. Allen SCHWARTZ, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. 21684. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Harry A. Franklin, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Joseph Stell, Los Angeles, for respondents.
This is an appeal by the defendant from a decree enjoining defendant from, among other things, soliciting or accepting certain business of persons who were customers of the plaintiffs during the period of the employment of defendant by plaintiffs, and awarding plaintiffs $500 damages.
A resume of the facts established, and some of the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, is as follows: The plaintiffs are, and for about eight and one-half years had been, engaged in the house-to-house installment sales business. Their business is carried on by selling merchandise, generally to a housewife in the low income bracket, at her house, with either a down payment of a dollar or two, or with no down payment. Weekly installments of one or two dollars each are thereafter collected by the plaintiffs through their collector-salesman. The collector-salesman has a dual task: he calls at the house of the customer each week on a scheduled day and collects the small installment payment; at the same time he makes what in the trade are called 'add-on sales,' which are sales of additional merchandise the cost of which is added to the customer's account. The customer comes to rely on the plaintiffs, through the media of their collector-salesmen, as her supplier of the type of goods which plaintiffs handle.
Plaintiffs carry a line of general merchandise, clothing, household goods and appliances. Their customers are unique in that they are, very largely, persons in the low income brackets and many of them cannot afford to patronize more than one house-to-house credit-installment supplier. To such persons, the plaintiffs' services and credit policy are of special appeal.
Plaintiffs have about 9,000 accounts in Los Angeles county. Their customers were obtained, ordinarily, by (1) references from old customers; (2) employees of plaintiffs canvassing the various homes for the sole purpose of attempting to make an initial sale and (3) plaintiffs purchasing accounts from companies whose business it was to canvass and make the opening sale on an installment basis. Many of the persons who opened such accounts would make a single purchase and thereafter pay off the account, but some would continue to buy and these formed the hard core of regular, steady customers who bought merchandise from the plaintiffs for many years. There was considerable turnover in the new accounts but plaintiffs' regular customers could be counted on to buy month after month and year after year.
The plaintiffs' cost of merchandise plus costs of sales and collections was about 70% of the gross sales price. After computing overhead, plaintiffs made a net profit of approximately 10%. These percentages continued fairly constant and a few hundred customers one way or the other did not raise or lower the overhead materially.
Defendant was employed by the plaintiffs as a collector-salesman in March, 1954, and shortly thereafter he was assigned to a route. For each day of the week he was given a set of about 100 cards and on each card was the name of a customer of plaintiffs on the particular route, her address, a list of the merchandise previously bought by her from the plaintiffs, and the dates and amounts of payments for the period during which she had been a customer of the plaintiffs; also, the money balance due on the account and the name of the person who referred or obtained the customer in the first instance. The weekly route of about 500 customers assigned to the defendant was located in the district known as East Los Angeles. The defendant serviced this regular route of plaintiffs' customers for six months, seeing each customer on the same day of each week during that time. When the card indicated that the balance of the account and the credit rating of the customer warranted it, the defendant would attempt to sell additional merchandise to the customer. The customers were induced to and did rely upon defendant being at their house one week from the day of his last call.
About September 4, 1954, defendant left plaintiffs' employ. He immediately started operating the same type of business for himself, selling the same kind of merchandise. He went back along his old route and methodically visited the customers of plaintiffs whose names, identities and location he had learned, and whose personal acquaintance he had made, during and by reason of his former employment with the plaintiffs. He visited these customers without any prior invitation or request on their part to do so, with the exception of a very few instances, and he solicited business from them and advised them that he was now engaged in the same business for himself. With the knowledge which he had acquired from the plaintiffs' customer cards he asked, suggested and urged the customer to buy merchandise from him upon the same installment basis. If he did not succeed in selling the customer the first time, he would call back regularly. After he made a sale he would call on the customer regularly each week, collecting the weekly installment and making substantial add-on sales, which were greatly facilitated by his having sold them merchandise during his employment with the plaintiffs.
Defendant solicited business from most of the customers on whom he called while in the plaintiffs' employ and he succeeded in diverting to himself in many cases all, and in some cases a portion, of the business of about 100 customers. He admitted selling a total of $2,676.45 in merchandise to 54 of plaintiffs' customers.
The plaintiffs, upon learning of defendant's activities, instituted this action and on December 2, 1954, a preliminary injunction was issued. Thereafter, defendant continued to make sales in spite of the injunction. After a full and complete hearing was had, the trial court granted a permanent injunction had awarded the plaintiffs $500 damages, from which judgment the defendant prosecutes this appeal upon a settled statement.
The defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the judgment for $500 damages. The defendant admitted to sales of merchandise in a total sum of $2,676.45 to but fifty-four of the plaintiffs' customers. There would be nothing unreasonable under the facts of this case to conclude that the sales to the fifty-four customers were representative of the sales made by the defendant to all of the approximately one hundred customers of the plaintiffs. The trial court could well have concluded from the evidence that the defendant sold $5,000 worth of merchandise of a kind usually sold by the plaintiffs to those of plaintiffs' customers whom defendant learned of by reason of his employment by the plaintiffs. There was testimony that the net profit is always about 10% of the gross sales. Furthermore, the plaintiffs would not necessarily be limited to such an amount as damages. They were entitled to recover for all damages proximately caused by the defendant's wrong. Civ.Code, § 3333.
Defendant asserts that there was no confidential information not readily accessible to his competitors and further contends that he did not injure the plaintiffs. A reading of the facts of this case completely answers any such contention.
In the case of George v. Burdusis, 1942, 21 Cal.2d 153, at pages...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. Impaxx, Inc.
...and out of line with the cases which precede it. They cite Gordon v. Landau (1958) 49 Cal.2d 690, 321 P.2d 456, Gordon v. Schwartz (1956) 147 Cal.App.2d 213, 305 P.2d 117, and Gordon v. Wasserman (1957) 153 Cal.App.2d 328, 314 P.2d 759, all of which are trade-route cases involving salesmen ......
-
The Retirement Group v. Galante
...courts have concluded customer lists can qualify for trade secret protection. (See Gordon v. Landau (1958) 49 Cal.2d 690 ; Gordon v. Schwartz (1956) 147 Cal.App.2d 213 ; Gordon v. Wasserman (1957) 153 Cal.App.2d 328 .) Although "courts are reluctant to protect customer lists to the extent t......
-
American Loan Corp. v. California Commercial Corp.
...damages was supported by the evidence. (J. C. Peacock, Inc. v. Hasko, 196 Cal.App.2d 363, 370, 16 Cal.Rptr. 518; Gordon v. Schwartz, 147 Cal.App.2d 213, 216, 305 P.2d 117; Reid v. Mass Co., Inc., supra.) Where a corporate officer seizes business opportunities unfairly to the detriment of hi......
-
J. T. Miller Co. v. Madel
...far as it did in Gloria Ice Cream, supra (Gloria Ice Cream, etc., Co. v. Cowan, 2 Cal.2d 460, 41 P.2d 340), in Gordon v. Schwartz, 147 Cal.App.2d 213, 305 P.2d 117, 121 (1957), the California Court listed as one criterion in 'trade route' cases that the information was confidential and not ......
-
NDA Law In California
...confidential business, financial, and technical information as 'trade secrets,' such as: client lists (Gordon v. Schwartz (1956), 147 Cal. App. 2d 213, 217); unpatented inventions (Sketchley v. Lipkin (1950) 99 Cal. 2d 849, 854); product plans and designs (Vacco Indus., Inc. v. Van Den Berg......