Facts

Mentor Worldwide LLC, which was owned by Johnson & Johnson, and Sientra Inc. were both companies in the breast implant business. The companies were competitors, given that they both had Food and Drug Administration approval to sell breast implants. On Mar. 12, 2012, Jeffrey Lewis, a Mentor regional manager, and 19 sales managers and representatives, left Mentor to join Sientra. Thereafter, Mentor sued Sientra and Lewis.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Mentor sued Sientra and Lewis asserting claims of unfair competition, misappropriation of trade secrets, intentional interference with contract and prospective advantage, and breach of fiduciary duty, among others. Mentor accused Sientra of conspiring with Lewis to unlawfully facilitate Sientra's hiring of a large percentage of its sales staff through a planned "corporate raid," targeting 35 percent of Mentor's sales force and then hiring away 20 sales employees in one day without notice. Mentor also alleged Lewis misappropriated and converted its confidential information and trade secrets and that he breached his fiduciary duties to Mentor. Mentor also alleged he and the former employees took proprietary customer lists and pricing information giving Sientra an unfair economic advantage.

As to the claim of unjust enrichment, plaintiff's expert, Dr. Barbara Luna, testified that Sientra benefited and continues to benefit from the sales made by former Mentor salespersons. In particular, the claims against defendants included interference with prospective economic advantage, contract interference, breach of fiduciary duty and misappropriation of trade secrets.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defense argued that Sientra adhered to a "clean hands" policy that prohibited each new hire from taking, disclosing, or using Mentor property. The defense further argued that the policy barred each new hire from soliciting or speaking to any Mentor employee about job opportunities at Sientra; and required the new hires to return or delete everything known to be in their possession that belonged to Mentor. Defendants argued that Mentor filed the lawsuit, as well as 13 cases against the individual employees, in order to destroy competition.

Damages

Mentor sought $27 million. Luna opined that Sientra was unjustly enriched for $4,300,000 in a 12-month period, and $13,200,000 in a 21-month period.

Result

On Aug. 30, 2013, the jury ruled that Sientra and Lewis did not intentionally interfere with Mentor's business operations or its contracts. It also ruled that Lewis did not breach his fiduciary duty or duty of loyalty to Mentor or misappropriate any Mentor trade secrets. Prior to verdict, the court granted defendants' motion for nonsuit as to Mentor's claims for conversion and for violations of California Labor Code sections 2863, 2854, 2856, 2860. On Sept. 4, 2013, after a subsequent bench trial on equity issues, the court endorsed the jury verdict and additionally ruled that Sientra engaged in no unfair competition and was not unjustly enriched. The court also ruled that Mentor failed to prove any damages and identified no cognizable claim for relief against Sientra.

Length

eight weeks