Orange, S.A. v. USDC for the Northern Dist. of CA, San Francisco, No. 15-71668 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseTelesocial, a San Francisco start-up, entered into a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) regarding a possible agreement to acquire Telesocial's software application named "Call Friends." This dispute stems from Telesocial's allegations that Orange violated federal and state laws by stealing Telesocial's technology to create its own product called "Party Call." Orange and its employees seek a writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. 1651 directing the district court to vacate its order denying Orange’s motion to dismiss, and direct an entry of judgment dismissing Telesocial’s First Amended Complaint (FAC). The court applied the Bauman v. United States factors and concluded that the district court did not commit clear legal error in determining that the NDA did not cover the claims at issue; Orange has the ability on direct appeal to attain the relief it desires; Orange will not be prejudiced in a way that is not correctable on appeal; and the district court’s decision does not raise a novel issue that affects the international business community. Accordingly, the court denied Orange’s petition for writ of mandamus.
Court Description: Mandamus Relief. The panel denied a petition for a writ of mandamus, brought by Orange, S.A., and several of its employees, under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, asking this court to direct the district court to dismiss Telesocial, Inc.’s First Amended Complaint. Orange and Telesocial executed a non-disclosure agreement (“NDA”) concerning a custom software application named “Call Friends.” Telesocial filed an action in the Northern District of California, alleging violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and California state law claims. The district court denied Orange’s motion to dismiss Telesocial’s First Amended Complaint based on forum non conveniens. IN RE ORANGE, S.A. 3 In denying Orange’s petition for writ of mandamus, the panel applied the factors in Bauman v. United States, 557 F.2d 650, 654 (9th Cir. 1977), and concluded that the district court did not commit clear legal error in determining that the NDA did not cover the claims at issue; Orange had the ability on direct appeal to attain the relief it desired; Orange would not be prejudiced in a way that was not correctable on appeal; and the district court’s decision did not raise a novel issue that affected the international business community.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.