Defendants appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County (California), granting injunctive relief against to defendants, to enjoin their violation of an agreement with plaintiff not to engage in the same or similar business for 10 years.

Defendant owned and operated a print and supply business, making blue prints, Diazo prints, photostat work, and selling the necessary material for that purpose. Defendant entered into an agreement for the sale of his business to plaintiff for $ 45,000. The agreement provided that defendant was not to engage in a similar business in San Diego County for 10 years. Thereafter, defendant used several corporations owned by others, and Employment lawyer riverside formed several of his own, in which defendant and his wife were the sole stockholders, to operate a similar business. Plaintiff commenced action against defendant corporations seeking injunctive relief and damages for defendants' violation of the non-compete agreement. Defendants appealed the order granting the injunction. The court affirmed the order because circumstances warranted the authorization of the injunction. The court reasoned that the evidence sufficiently showed that defendant formed his corporations and conspired with others, for the purpose of enabling him to circumvent his covenant with plaintiff.

The court affirmed the order because defendant owner was clearly in violation of the non-competition agreement. The court ruled that defendant could not circumvent his promise under the agreement by operating as a corporation, rather than as an individual.

This case was before the court on an application for the disbarment of an attorney and counselor at law.

The court held that the attorney violated his duty as attorney and counselor in accepting this employment from another in two cases after having had control of them as the attorney and counselor for the city. The court concluded that the attorney's agreement to sit out or stand out, and not argue the causes in the Supreme Court required him to refrain from exercising the functions of counselor or barrister in cases where he had been employed and paid to act for a former client. Therefore, the court concluded that it was a violation of his duty of fidelity to his client as attorney and counsel to be employed and paid under such circumstances. The court ordered that the attorney should be suspended from acting as attorney and counselor at law in any matter for the period of six months from the entry of the court's order.

The court ordered suspension of the attorney in any court in the state for the period of six months from the date of the court's order.