Thomas vs. ADECCO USA, INC.

relevant only to Sonorous only if the trade secrets are part of the technical files for Balt’s braided tent product, known as the Leo,” as Plaintiff alleges that “the ‘Bosstent’ is a ‘venous stent system’” that “includes a delivery catheter that would benefit from Balt’s trade secrets related to Balt catheter products, like the Ballast or Titan,” about which documents were produced as part of M4D’s May 2026 production. (ROA #2024 [Reply to Sonorous Opp.], p. 4.) Plaintiff also contends that “the misappropriated trade secrets also contain information related to equipment, material and test protocols that would be valuable for Defendants’ development of the Bosstent system.” (Id.)

Indeed, Defendants—including Sonorous—also make various other arguments challenging the substantive merit of Plaintiff’s proposed 4AC, including whether Plaintiff’s misappropriation of trade secret claims are barred by applicable statutes of limitations and whether the proposed 4AC pleads sufficient facts to state a claim for misappropriation of trade secrets against any particular Defendant. But these issues are not ripe for adjudication at this time, and certainly not on the record and arguments currently before the Court, and especially to the extent they involve disputed factual contentions. (See Atkinson v. v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 760 [“better course of action” is to grant leave to amend the complaint “and then let the parties test its legal sufficiency in other appropriate proceedings”].)

At the hearing on the motion, the Court will hear from the parties on setting an appropriate new trial date in light of this ruling.

Plaintiff is ORDERED to separately file the proposed 4AC with the Court within 3 court days and serve all Defendants within 30 days. The 4AC must be filed as a separate document to ensure it is properly indexed in the record.

Moving party shall give notice. 104 Thomas vs. ADECCO USA, INC.

2025-01486759 1. Motion to Compel Arbitration 2. Joinder 3. Case Management Conference

In light of Plaintiff Kevin M. Thomas’s Statement of Non-Opposition (ROA #58) to Defendant Adecco USA, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration (ROA #44), the Court GRANTS Defendant Adecco’s motion.

Plaintiff also has not filed any opposition to the Joinder of Defendant Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey (erroneously sued herein as Vets4Warriors) in Defendant Adecco’s motion, which asserts that “the arguments and contentions set forth in its Motion are equally applicable to Rutgers.” (ROA #50.) Accordingly, the Court also GRANTS Defendant Rutgers’s joinder.

Plaintiff is ORDERED to arbitrate his individual claims against Defendants Adecco and Rutgers. Plaintiff’s representative claims are otherwise STAYED until the arbitration is had pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4.