Rivera Ex Parte TRO Application

1 KENDALL BRILL & KELLY LLP
Bert H. Deixler (70614)

2
bdeixler@kbifzrm.com
Robert Dugdale (167258)
3
rdugdale@kbifzrm.com
Philip M. Kelly (212714)
4
pkelly@kbifzrm.com
Susannah M. Rooney (293493)
5
srooney@kbifzrm.com
10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 1725
6 Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: 310.556.2700
7 Facsimile:
310.556.2705
8 Attorneys for Plaintiff
Jenni Rivera Enterprises, LLC
Copy To Be
Conformed
D c 9 PY
CONFORME FIU:-ID
AL
N
GI
RI
O
calltornia
,
. o,. court of
supen
,._,'
A nq elf"
county of Los
DEC 2 1 Z016
ive omcer/Clerk
Fimcu\
..,,.....
'"'
Sherri. i"'l, ,\rn
utV
Richard ouiute, Oep
By:
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
12
13 JENNI RIVERA ENTERPRISES, LLC, a
California limited liability company,
14
Plaintiff,
15
v.
16
PETE SALGADO, an individual; LATIN

17 WORLD ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS,
INC., a Florida corporation; LUIS
18 BALAGUER, an individual; DHANA
MEDIA, INC., a Florida corporation; BTF
19 MEDIA, LLC, a Florida limited liability
company; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
20
Defendants.
21
Case No. BC633764
PLAINTIFF JENNI RIVERA

ENTERPRISES, LLC'S EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE; MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Judge:
Date:
Time:
Dept.:
Hon. Michael J. Raphael

December 21, 2016
8:30 am
51
Action Filed: September 12, 2016
22
23
24
25
26
27
Kendall Brill
& Kelly LLP
28
10100 Santa 1'vlonica Blvd

Suite 1725
Los Angeles, CA gQQ6/
298292
Case No. BC633764

PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
TO THE PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on December 21, 2016, at 8:30 a.m., or as soon
3 thereafter as counsel may be heard, in Department 51 of the above-captioned Court, located at 111
4 N. Hill Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, Plaintiff Jenni Rivera Enterprises, LLC ("Plaintiff')
5 will and hereby does move for entry of a temporary restraining order and an order to show cause
6 re: preliminary injunction in the form of the proposed order submitted herewith.
7
Rivera requests that Defendant Pete Salgado ("Salgado") appear before this Court on
8 February 27, 2017 at 8:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, to show cause
9 why a preliminary injunction should not issue enjoining and restraining Salgado, including his
10 agents, servants, employees, partners, members, principals, and any company or entity that he
11 owns or controls, from violating the terms of the non-disclosure agreement dated September 17,
12 2013 ("NDA"), including, but not limited to:
Kendall Brill
& Kelly LLP
13
(1) disclosing or divulging any information, knowledge, and data relating to the respective
14
operations, business, financial affairs and personal affairs of Dolores Janney Rivera
15
p/k/a Jenni Rivera, Rosa A. Rivera Flores, Jaquelin Campos, Jenika Lopez, Juan
16
Lopez, Trinidad Marin, or Janney Marin to any person, firm, or corporation other than
17
JRE or its designees;
18
(2) using for himself or others, disclosing or divulging to others, including third parties,
19
any and all information and/or data relating to the business and personal affairs of
20
Dolores Janney Rivera p/k/a Jenni Rivera, Rosa A. Rivera Flores, Jaquelin Campos,
21
Jenika Lopez, Juan Lopez, Trinidad Marin, or Janney Marin, or any other proprietary
22
data of JRE and of Dolores Janney Rivera p/k/a Jenni Rivera, Rosa A. Rivera Flores,
23
Jaquelin Campos, Jenika Lopez, Juan Lopez, Trinidad Marin, or Janney Marin.
24
(3) disclosing or divulging any information and/or data relating to the business and
25
personal affairs of Dolores Janney Rivera p/k/a Jenni Rivera, Rosa A. Rivera Flores,
26
Jaquelin Campos, Jenika Lopez, Juan Lopez, Trinidad Marin, or Janney Marin, or any
27
other proprietary data of JRE and of Dolores Janney Rivera p/k/a Jenni Rivera, Rosa A.
28
Rivera Flores, Jaquelin Campos, Jenika Lopez, Juan Lopez, Trinidad Marin, or Janney
10100 Santa Monica Blvd

Suite l 725
Los Angeles, CA 90067
298292
Case No. BC633764

1
Marin to Latin World Entertainment Holdings, Inc., Dhana Media, Inc., BTF Media,
Inc. Luis Balaguer, Univision, Harper Collins, or any of their subsidiaries, affiliates,
employees, agents, representatives, or persons or entities working in concert with them;
(4) producing in any way, participating in any way in the production of, or participating in
any way in the dissemination of any television show that is based in whole or in part on
any information and/or data disclosed or divulged by you relating to the business and
10
11
Marin;
12
(5) publishing in any way, participating in any way in the publication of, or participating in
13
any way in the dissemination of any book or written materials that is based in whole or
14
in part on any information and/or data disclosed or divulged by you relating to the
15
business and personal affairs of Dolores Janney Rivera p/k/a Jenni Rivera, Rosa A.
16
17
Marin, or any other proprietary data of JRE and of Dolores Janney Rivera p/k/a Jenni
18
Rivera, Rosa A. Rivera Flores, Jaquelin Campos, Jenika Lopez, Juan Lopez, Trinidad
19
Marin , or Janney Marin;
20
Kendall Brill
& Kelly LLP
(6) participating in any interviews, marketing, press activities, events, or other promotional
21
activities in connection with any television show that includes any information and/or
22
data disclosed or divulged by you relating to the business and personal affairs of
23
24
25
26
Jaquelin Campos, Jenika Lopez, Juan Lopez, Trinidad Marin, or Janney Marin; and
27
28
activities in connection with any book or written material that includes any information

Suite 1725
298292
Case No. BC633764

2
and/or data disclosed or divulged by you relating to the business and personal affairs of
Any such action would violate the NDA that Salgado entered into and would cause Rivera
7 irreparable harm.
8
Rivera also requests that, pending the hearing and determination of the Order to Show
9 Cause, Salgado including his agents, servants, employees, partners, members, principals, and any
10 company or entity that he owns or controls, be restrained and enjoined from violating the terms of
11 the non-disclosure agreement dated September 17, 2013 ("NDA"), including, but not limited to:
Kendall Brill
& Kelly LLP
12
(1) disclosing or divulging any information, knowledge, and data relating to the respective
13
operations, business, financial affairs and personal affairs of Dolores Janney Rivera
14
p/k/a Jenni Rivera, Rosa A. Rivera Flores, Jaquelin Campos, Jenika Lopez, Juan
15
Lopez, Trinidad Marin, or Janney Marin to any person, firm, or corporation other than
16
JRE or its designees;
17
(2) using for himself or others, disclosing or divulging to others, including third parties,
18
any and all information and/or data relating to the business and personal affairs of
19
20
21
22
23
(3) disclosing or divulging any information and/or data relating to the business and
24
25
26
27
28
Marin to Latin World Entertainment Holdings, Inc., Dhana Media, Inc., BTF Media,
10100 Sanla Monica Blvd

Suite 1725
298292
Case No. BC633764

3
Inc. Luis Balaguer, Univision, Harper Collins, or any of their subsidiaries, affiliates,
employees, agents, representatives, or persons or entities working in concert with them;
(4) producing in any way, participating in any way in the production of, or participating in
any way in the dissemination of any television show that is based in whole or in part on
any information and/or data disclosed or divulged by you relating to the business and
10
Marin;
11
(5) publishing in any way, participating in any way in the publication of, or participating in
12
any way in the dissemination of any book or written materials that is based in whole or
13
in part on any information and/or data disclosed or divulged by you relating to the
14
business and personal affairs of Dolores Janney Rivera p/k/a Jenni Rivera, Rosa A.
15
16
Marin, or any other proprietary data of JRE and of Dolores Janney Rivera p/k/a Jenni
17
Rivera, Rosa A. Rivera Flores, Jaquelin Campos, Jenika Lopez, Juan Lopez, Trinidad
18
Marin , or Janney Marin;
19
Kendall Brill
& Kelly LLP
20
activities in connection with any television show that includes any information and/or
21
data disclosed or divulged by you relating to the business and personal affairs of
22
23
24
25
.Jaquelin Campos, Jenika Lopez, Juan Lopez, Trinidad Marin, or Janney Marin; and
26
27
activities in connection with any book or written material that includes any information
28
and/or data disclosed or divulged by you relating to the business and personal affairs of
10100 Santa Monica BlvcJ

Suite 1725
298292
Case No. BC633764

4
As explained in the accompanying motion, Salgado has publicly disclosed, and threatens to
6 further publicly disclose, confidential and sensitive information related to the personal and private
7 lives of Jenni Rivera and Jenni Rivera's family members, which has and will cause emotional pain
8 and embarrassment to her family. These disclosures also sully the valuable Rivera name, and in
9 doing so, deprive Plaintiff of the opportunity to present Jenni Rivera in a positive light to her fans
10 through her music and merchandise. Accordingly, a temporary restraining order should issue until
11 such time as the Court may determine whether a preliminary injunction is warranted.
12
Finally, Rivera asks that this Court set a briefing schedule as described herein.
13
Plaintiff provided notice of this ex parte application, in writing, to counsel for Salgado and
14 the Production Defendants on December 19, 2016 at 1 :42 p.m. Declaration of Robert Dugdale
15 ("Dugdale Deel.") 3; Ex. A. Plaintiffs counsel has been advised that Salgado and the
16 Production Defendants intend to oppose the application. Id. The names, addresses, telephone
17 numbers, and email addresses of record for Salgado' s counsel and counsel for the Production
18 Defendants are as follows:
19 Stephen D. Rothschild, Esq.
King, Holmes, Paterno & Soriano, LLP
20 1900 Avenue of the Stars
Twenty-Fifth Floor
21
Los Angeles, California 90067-4508
22 Telephone: 310-282-8989
Email: SRothschild@khpslaw.com
23 Attorneys for Defendant Pete Salgado
Kendall Brill
& Kelly LLP
24 James G. Sammataro, Esq.

Crystal Y. Jonelis, Esq.
25
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP
2029
Century Park East, 18th Floor
26
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3086
27 Telephone: 310-556-5800
Facsimile: 310-556-5959
28 Email: lacalendar@stroock.com

Suite 1725
298292
Case No. BC633764

5
1 Attornevs Defendants BTF Media. LLC

2 Martin D. Singer, Esq.
Andrew Brettler, Esq.
3
Lavely & Singer
4 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2906
5 Tele: (310) 556-3501
Telephone: (310) 556-3615
6 Email: mdsinger@lavelysinger.com
abrettler@lavelysinger.com
7
Attorneys for Defendants Latin World
8 Entertainment Holdings, Inc., Luis Balaguer
and Dhana Media, Inc.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
There has not been any previous application by any party for such relief, whether or an ex
parte basis or otherwise. Pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court 3. l 150(b), Plaintiff has requested that
the court file (which consists of no more than the Complaint and Summons and recent filings
made in connection with anti-SLAPP motions filed by Salgado and the Production Defendants) be
made available to the judge hearing the application.
This Application is based upon Code Civ. Proc. 525 et seq., Cal. Rules of Court 3.1150
& 3.1200 et seq, the Complaint, this Ex Parte Application and the accompanying Memorandum of
Points and Authorities, the [Proposed] Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause,
the declarations of Robert Dugdale, Rosa Rivera Flores, and James Blanco, and such other matters
that the Court may consider or of which the Court may take judicial notice.
DATED: December 20, 2016
KENDALL BRILL & KELLY LLP
22
By:
23
Robert Dugdale
Attorneys for Plaintiff
24
25
26
27
Kendall Brill
& Kelly LLP
28
1O100 Santa Mom ca Blvd

Suite 1725
Lo!i Angeles, CA 90067
298292
Case No. BC633764

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
2
3 I.
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................1
4 II.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................ 3
A.
The Death of Jenni Rivera and the Efforts by Her Family to Protect Intimate
Details of Her Life and the Lives of Her Family Members by Having
Salgado and Others Sign the NDA ............................................................................ 3
B.
Univision Publically Announces That Salgado and the Production

Defendants Are Co-Producing A Television Show Set to Air in 2017 That
Will Be Based on a Book Being Written By Salgado and That Will Reveal
"Many Secrets" Concerning Ms. Rivera's Life ......................................................... 5
C.
Specific Evidence Emerges This Month Proving that Salgado Is Engaged in

Egregious, Ongoing Violations of the NDA .............................................................. 5
6
7
8
9
10
11 III.
ARGUMENT ......................................................................................................................... 7
12
A.
The Legal Standard Governing A Temporary Restraining Order .............................. 7
13
B.
Plaintiff Is Very Likely to Prevail on the Merits of its Case Against Salgado .......... 8
14
1.
The NDA Is A Valid Contract ....................................................................... 8
15
2.
Plaintiff Presents a Highly Meritorious Breach of Contract Claim ............... 9
16
3.
Plaintiff Has a Strong Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim ................................ 9
17
4.
Salgado Violated Section 17200 of the California Business and

Professions Code .......................................................................................... 10
18
C.
19
20
21
22
The Irreparable Harm Plaintiff Faces Significantly Outweighs Any Possible

Harm to Defendant Salgado Resulting From A TRO Requiring Him To
Comply With His Promises...................................................................................... 10
1.
Plaintiff Will Suffer Irreparable Injury In the Absence of a TRO ............... 11
2.
Salgado Will Not Suffer any Unwarranted Injury as a Result of an

Injunction ....................................................................................................13
23
D.
24 IV.
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 15
The Scope of a TR0 ................................................................................................. 15
25
26
27
Kendall Brill
& Kelly LLP
28
10100 Santa Mornca Blvd
Suile 1725
Lm Angeles, CA 90067
298292
Case No. BC633764

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
1
2
Page(s)
3 Cases
4 Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. ,

1 8 1 Cal. App. 4th 471 (201 0) ...................................................................... ........... ............ . . . ..... 1 0
5
6 Brisbane Lodging, L.P. v. Webcor Builders, Inc. ,
2 1 6 Cal. App. 4th 1249 (201 3) ................................................... ......... ........ . . . . . . . . . ......... .......... ... 1 0
7
Church ofChrist in Hollywood v. Superior Court,
8
99 Cal. App. 4th 1244 (2002) ..................................................................................................... . . 8
9 Common Cause v. Board ofSupervisors,
49 Cal. 3 d 432 (1 989) .................................................................................................................. 8
10
1 l People v. Custom Craft Carpets, Inc. ,
1 59 Cal. App. 3d 676 (1 984)....................................................................................... . .............. 1 5
12
Dep 't ofFish & Game v. Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation Dist. ,
13
8 Cal. App. 4th 1 554 (1 992)........................................................................... ............................ 1 3
1 4 People v. Dollar Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc. ,
2 1 1 Cal. App. 3 d 1 1 9 (1 989) ............................................................................................ .......... 1 0
15
1 6 Donahue Schriber Realty Grp., Inc. v. Nu Creation Outreach,
232 Cal. App. 4th 1 1 7 1 (201 4).................................................................................... . .............. l 3
17
DVD Copy Control Ass'n, Inc. v. Bunner,
3 1 Cal. 4th 864 (2003) ................ ............................... ..... . . ......... ............. ..... . . ....... ..... . . ........... ... 1 4
18
1 9 Evans v. Evans,
1 62 Cal. App. 4th 1 1 57 (2008).................................. . . . . . . . . ......... ....................... ......................... 1 4
20
Gilbert v. Nat'! Enquirer, Inc. ,
21
43 Cal. App. 4th 1 1 35 (1 996) ..................................................................................................... 1 4
22
ITT Telecom Prod. Corp. v. Dooley,
2 1 4 Cal. App. 3d 307 (1 989) ......... ............ . ... ... .......... ........... ..... . . . . . ... .... ..... ... ..... ........... ...... l l , 1 4
23
Kendall Brill
& Kelly LLP
24 Jay Bharat Developers, Inc. v. Minidis,

1 67 Cal. App. 4th 437 (2008) ..................................................................................................... 1 0
25
McKell v. Washington Mut., Inc. ,
26
1 42 Cal. App. 4th 1 457 (2006) ... .............................................. ................. . . . .......................... .... 1 0
27
Netlist Inc v. Diablo Techs. Inc,
No. 1 3-CV-05962-YGR, 201 5 WL 1 53724 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 201 5) . . . . . . .... .... . ... . . ............ . .... 1 3
28
1 O 1 00 Sttnta Monica Blvd

Suite 1 725
Lrn A 1igeles, CA 90067
298292
Case No. BC633764

ii
1 Right Site Coalition v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist.,

160 Cal. App. 4th 336 (2008)....................................................................................................... 8
2
Snepp v. United States,
3
444 U.S. 507 (1980) ................................................................................................................... 14
4
In re Steinberg,
148 Cal. App. 3d 14 (1983) ....... ......... ....... .... .... ..... .............. ............. .... .... ................................. 1 4
5
6 Take Me Home Rescue v. Luri,
208 Cal. App. 4th 1342 (2012)... ........ ...................................... ................................................ 8, 9
7
University of Southern California v. American Bar Ass 'n,
8
301 F. Supp. 2d 1129 (C.D. Cal. 2004)...................................................................................... 12
9 Statutes
10
11
Business and Professions Code 17200 ....................................... ............................................... 3, 10
Code of Civil Procedure

525 ................ ............................................................................................. ................. ............... 6
12
526(a) ......................... .... ......... ..... ......................................................... ......................... ..... 7, 13
13
527(c) ........................................................................................................................................ 7
14 Rules
15
16
Rules of Court 3. 1 150 .... ......... ....................... .................. ................ ............. .............................. ....... 6
Rules of Court 3.1200 .......................................... ....................................................................... ....... 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Kendall Brill
& Kelly LLP
28
10100 Sanla Monrca Blvd

Suile 1725
298292
Case No. BC633764

111
---------PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
------------
------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Kendall Brill
& Kelly LLP
I.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Jenni Rivera Enterprises, LLC ("Plaintiff') applies to this Court ex parte seeking
a Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") and Order to Show Cause Re: Preliminary Injunction,
enjoining and restraining Defendant Pete Salgado ("Salgado") from continuing to breach a non
disclosure agreement entered between Salgado and Plaintiff on or about September 17, 2013 (the
"NDA"). The TRO seeks to: (1) prevent Salgado from disclosing to the Production Defendants or
Univision or HarperCollins any information subject to the NDA; (2) stop Salgado from producing
any show or publishing any book or written material disclosing information subject to the NDA;
and (3) stop Salgado from participating in any marketing activities related to the production or
publishing of materials disclosing information subject to the NDA.
The need for this injunctive relief is now acute, as Salgado has very recently started to
divulge for the first time intimate details to the public concerning Jenni Rivera's personal life in
blatant violation of the NDA. Specifically, last week Univision began airing a series of videos
featuring Salgado, for the apparent purpose of promoting the release of "Su verdadero nombre era
Dolores" (Her Real Name Was Dolores) (the "Rivera Television Project"), in which Salgado
discloses to the public salacious information about Jenni Rivera and her closest family members
that he purports he learned as a result of his status as Jenni Rivera's long-time confidante. There
is no doubt that Salgado' s disclosure of information in these videos - and ultimately in the
television show they are promoting - is being disclosed by Salgado in violation of the NDA.
Salgado himself is interviewed in these videos disclosing intimate details about Jenni Rivera's life
that he claims he learned as a result of being a member of her inner circle, including divulging,
among other things, that Jenni Rivera's own daughter had an affair with one of Jenni Rivera's
former husbands (a scandalous allegation Jenni Rivera's daughter has strongly denied). These
videos also contain footage of actors and actresses playing the roles of Jenni Rivera, Salgado, and
Jenni Rivera's family members - presumably cut from the Rivera Television Project Salgado is
planning to present to the public as that show's Executive Producer in January - and in this
28
1 0 1 00 San1a Momca Blvd

Suite 1 725
298292
Case No. BC633764

1
1 footage these actors and actresses publicly disclose extremely compromising details that were
2 supplied by Salgado about Jenni Rivera's life and the lives of her family members.
In addition to breaching the NDA by disclosing personal information that Salgado
4 apparently intends to air to the public as the Executive Producer of the Rivera Television Series, it
5 became clear last week that Salgado is proceeding full steam ahead in his plans to publish a book 6 entitled "Su Nombre Era Dolores, La Jenn Que Yo Conoci." (Her Name Was Dolores, the Jenn
7 That I Knew) - in which he will engage in wholesale disclosures of information concerning Jenni
8 Rivera and her family members in violation of the NDA. In this regard, on Monday December 12,
9 2016, HarperCollins Espanol announced that it had acquired the rights to publish Salgado's book,
10 and news articles accompanying this announcement quickly underscored the extent to which
11 Salgado is breaching the NDA, as they make clear that HarperCollins is marketing this book based
12 on Salgado's "unique insights on [Jenni Rivera] which he acquired working by her side for almost
13 ten years, helping her to settle many of her successful contracts. This strong relationship turned
14 Pete [Salgado] into the singer's confidant, who shared with him personal issues, which she never
15 told anyone else." According to the promotional materials accompanying the announcement of
16 HarperCollins' plans to publish this book, it will be released in March 2017 and, much like the
17 videos aired by Univision, it promises to be replete with information subject to the NDA. Truly,
18 at this point it is clear that Salgado's blatant disregard for his contractual obligations under the
19 NDA knows no bounds.
20
As a result of Salgado's anticipated, upcoming breaches of the NDA - in presenting a
21 television series focused on Jenni Rivera's private life as the series' Executive Producer, in
22 disseminating intimate details about Jenni Rivera in a book bearing his name as its author, and in
23 further divulging compromising details about Jenni Rivera's private life and the private lives of
24 her family members as he promotes both of these projects - Plaintiff is now forced to seek the
25 immediate injunctive relief requested herein to stop Salgado from continuing to breach the NDA.
26 To that end, Plaintiff is entitled to a TRO for two reasons.
27
Kendall Brill
& Kelly LLP
First, Plaintiff can clearly meet its burden of showing it has a strong likelihood of
28 prevailing on the merits of the breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and unfair business

Su1le 1725
298292
Case No. BC633764

2
1 practices claims asserted against Salgado. Each of these claims turns on whether Salgado entered
2 into the NDA and whether it is authentic, and, on that score, Plaintiff has presented unrebutted
3 expert testimony that Salgado's signature is contained on the signature page of the NDA, Plaintiff
4 has presented the testimony of a witness who watched Salgado sign the NDA in her presence, and
5 Salgado has supplied no plausible explanation for how his signature wound up on the NDA.
6 Furthermore, Plaintiff has demonstrated that it provided Salgado with valuable consideration in
7 return for signing the NDA, as it permitted him to continue to work on Jenni Rivera-related
8 projects after Salgado executed the NDA and allowed him to have access to personal and private
9 information about Jenni Rivera and her family. Despite reaping this significant benefit from
10 signing the NDA - a benefit that exceeded the nominal consideration called for in the NDA that
11 Salgado agreed by signing the NDA that he had received - Salgado did not honor his side of the
12 bargain called for under the NDA, as he has now publicly disclosed intimate details concerning
13 Jenni Rivera's private life. Based on these facts, Plaintiff can show that Salgado has not only
14 breached the NDA and his fiduciary duty to Plaintiff but that he has also violated California
15 Business and Professions Code Section 17200 as well.
Second, by showing its probable success on the merits of the instant action, Plaintiff is
16
17 entitled to a presumption that, absent a TRO, Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm that outweighs
18 any harm to Salgado resulting from a TRO being issued. Even without this presumption, Plaintiff
19 can definitively show that the harms it is currently experiencing are significant, as Salgado has
20 made public statements revealing embarrassing and personal information from Ms. Rivera's life,
21 which causes significant pain to her family, permanently damages Ms. Rivera's reputation, and
22 imposes economic losses on Plaintiff.
23 II.
24
25
26
27
Kendall Brill
& Kelly LLP
28
10100 Santa Mon,ca Blvd

Suite 1725
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A.
The Death of Jenni Rivera and the Efforts by Her Family to Protect I ntimate
Details of Her Life and the Lives of Her Family Members by Having Salgado
and Others Sign the NDA
Jenni Rivera is a world renown singer and songwriter who was killed in a plane crash in
December 2012. Declaration of Rosa Rivera Flores ("R. Rivera Deel.") , 1. After Ms. Rivera's
death, her sister, Rosie Rivera ("Rosie"), with the assistance of a lawyer, sought to carry on the
298292
Case No. BC633764

3
1 business affairs of Ms. Rivera for the benefit of Ms. Rivera's children. Id.
,r,r 1-2.
Given Ms.
2 Rivera's fame and her family's concern that people would discuss private matters, in December
3 2012, at Ms. Rivera's mother's house, those present, including Salgado, agreed that everybody,
4 including family members, those who provided services to her family, and anyone else in the
5 circle of associates who learned private details concerning Ms. Rivera and their family, must sign
6 an NDA preventing them from using or disclosing, among other things, information related to the
7 business and personal affairs of Ms. Rivera and her family members if they wished to continue
8 involvement with Ms. Rivera's affairs. Id.
9 to prepare an NDA. Id.
10
,r,r 2-4.
,r,r 2.
Shortly thereafter, Rosie instructed her attorney
Everyone in Ms. Rivera's family, including Rosie, signed it. Id.
By the late summer of 2013, Ms. Rivera's family became concerned that there had been
11 media reports about Ms. Rivera that they believed originated from an "insider." Id.
,r 4.
Rosie
12 discovered that Salgado and a few others had not signed the NDA circulated in the winter of 2012.
13 Id. As a result, on September 16, 2013, Rosie asked her attorney to provide a copy of a new NDA
14 to her so she could obtain signatures from the "insiders" who had yet to sign it. Id. Rosie
15 circulated the NDA by e-mail on September 18, 2013, to those who had not previously signed it,
16 including Salgado and requested that they sign and return it by September 20, 2013. Id.
17
,r 4.
Shortly after Rosie provided Salgado on September 18, 2013 with a new copy of the NDA
18 to sign, Rosa arranged to meet Salgado at Beatbox Pros, the Van Nuys Boulevard recording studio
19 where Salgado was working on the Jenni Rivera posthumous "English Album," to obtain his
20 signature on the NDA. Id.
,r,r 5-6.
Before entering the building, she met Salgado and told him that
21 she needed him to sign the NDA so that he could continue working on the English Album and
22 watched him sign it. Id.
,r 7.
By signing the NDA, Salgado fulfilled the condition permitting his
23 continued work on Jenni Rivera-related projects and he did, in fact, continue to work on and get
24 paid for such projects after signing the NDA. 1 Id.
,r 9.
25
26
Kendall Brill
& Kelly LLP
There is strong evidence that Salgado signed the NDA: (1) Rosa Rivera Flores has
provided sworn testimony that she witnessed Salgado sign the NDA, R. Rivera Deel. ,r,r 7-8; (2) a
27
well-qualified and well-credentialed expert has corroborated the testimony of Ms. Rivera Flores
by
providing an un-rebutted expert opinion that Salgado's signature on the NDA is Salgado's
28
10100 S.inla Monica Blv<J

Suite 1725
298292
Case No. BC633764

4
B.
Univision Publically Announces That Salgado and the Production Defendants

Are Co-Producing a Television Show Set to Air in 2017 That Will Be Based on
a Book Being Written By Salgado and That Will Reveal "Many Secrets"
Concerning Ms. Rivera's Life
Although Salgado signed the NDA and agreed to its terms, Salgado has repeatedly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
breached that agreement and his fiduciary obligations. Id ,i 7. In late-May 2016, Plaintiff
discovered, via media releases, that Salgado was actively breaching the NDA by working with the
Production Defendants to produce a television series for Univision based on non-public
information Salgado learned as Ms. Rivera's manager and confidante. Id ,i 1 1; Ex. 7. It is
undisputed, and as explained below, now a certainty, that the Rivera Television Project rests
heavily, if not exclusively, on information that Salgado has disclosed and continues to disclose to
the Production Defendants in violation of the NDA. Indeed, from its onset, Univision expressly
marketed this television series to the public as an insider's account of Ms. Rivera's life "behind
the music and the headlines as told by her former manager, a man she publicly referred to as her
fifth brother, Peter Salgado." Id. In announcing its plans to air this production, Univision further
claimed in a press release that "[t]his production will be based on the book written by executive
producer Pete Salgado, who worked closely with the singer in her last years of life and promises to
reveal many secrets." Id.
C.
18
Specific Evidence Emerges This Month Proving that Salgado Is Engaged in

Egregious, Ongoing Violations of the NDA
Salgado's repeated breaches of the NDA continue to date, and the harm they are causing
19
20 and threatening to cause to Plaintiff has grown more acute in recent days, as it has become clear
2 1 within the past week that Salgado i s breaching the NDA by disclosing salacious details about the
22 personal lives of Jenni Rivera and members of her family that Salgado claims he has exclusive
23 access to as a result of the fact he was a trusted member of Jenni Rivera's inner circle. In other
24 words, Salgado is disclosing the exact type of sensitive information concerning Jenni Rivera and
25
Kendall Brill
& Kelly LLP
genuine signature, that Salgado' s signature was not forged on the document, and that Salgado' s
26 signature was not "cut and pasted" from some other document and relocated to the NDA,
Declaration of James A. Blanco Ex. 1 at pp. 4-7; and (3) neither Salgado himself nor his paid
27
expert have provided this Court with a plausible explanation for how Salgado' s genuine signature
wound
up on the NDA.
28

Suite 1725
298292
Case No. BC633764

1 her family that Plaintiff sought to prohibit him from disclosing through Salgado' s execution of the
2 NDA and is causing great harm to Plaintiff and Jenni Rivera's family by doing so.
First, on or around December 10, 2016, Univision released a series of short videos
4 promoting its access to stories about Ms. Rivera's life, based on secrets that Salgado has disclosed
5 to Univision in violation of the NDA. Declaration of Robert Dugdale ("Dugdale Deel.") ,i 4, Exs.
6 B-H. In one of these videos, Salgado is identified as a witness to a so-called "explosive encounter
7 in a cafe" with Elena Jimenez, a close friend of Jenni Rivera. Salgado himself is interviewed in
8 this Univision video, describing an encounter between Jenni Rivera and Ms. Jimenez and a
9 subsequent fight between Ms. Rivera and her daughter, Chiquis Rivera ("Chiquis"). Id. The
10 video also contains footage of actors and actresses playing the roles of Jenni Rivera, Salgado,
11 Jimenez, and Chiquis. Id. The actors and actresses publicly disclose extremely compromising
12 details from Jenni Rivera's life and the lives of her family members. These details include the
13 reasons for Ms. Rivera's painful estrangement from her daughter Chiquis. Id.
In conjunction with this video, Univision released other short videos promoting the
14
15 television series about Jenni Rivera's life that Salgado is co-producing with the Production
16 Defendants. Id. All of these videos feature footage of actors playing Jenni Rivera, Salgado, Rosie
17 Rivera, and others, interspersed with real footage of Jenni Rivera and her family. Like the video
18 clip described above, Salgado himself is interviewed in a number of these video clips. Id. All of
19 these promotional videos reveal intimate details of Jenni Rivera's family life that Salgado purports
20 he learned as Rivera's confidante, including a painful story involving Chiquis, who was a victim
21 of sexual assault by her father; allegations that Chiquis had an affair with her stepfather; and
22 details about fights between Ms. Rivera and her ex-husband Esteban Loaiza. Id.
Second, new details have emerged over the past week concerning the book that Salgado is
23
24 threatening to release featuring information he is using and disclosing about Jenni Rivera's private
25 affairs in violation of the NDA. Specifically, according to numerous media reports, HarperCollins
26 Espanol has entered into an agreement with Salgado to publish a "tell-all" book he has written
27 about the life of Jenni Rivera, and it is scheduled to be released on March 7, 2017. Id. ,i 5, Exs. IKendall Brill
& Kelly LLP
28 J. According to promotional materials recently released in connection with this announcement,

Suite 1 725
Los Angeles, CA 9006 7
298292
Case No. BC633764

6
1 this book purports to cover "Salgado' s experiences while working alongside with the successful
2 Mexican-American star, Jenni Rivera, revealing shocking events in the months prior to the fateful
3 air crash that took her life in the northern sierras of Mexico." Id.
,r 5, Ex. I.
In addition, news
4 articles accompanying this announcement have described Salgado's role in the book as follows:
Rivera's former manager possesses unique insights on La Diva de
la Banda which he acquired working by her side for almost ten
years, helping her to settle many of her successful contracts. This
strong relationship turned Pete into the singer's confidant, who
shared with him personal issues, which she never told anyone else.
In "Her Name Was Dolores, The Jenn I Knew" - Salgado and
Vazquez [who is billed as co-author of this book] deal with the
details and events until now, unknown to the public: betrayals and
sorrows that Jenni Rivera faced by close and dear people for the
very first time are exposed in the pages of this book. Id.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
III.
12
ARGUMENT
A.
The Legal Standard Governing A Temporary Restraining Order
Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order preventing Salgado from publishing a book
1 3 based on Jenni Rivera's personal and private life and stopping Salgado from disclosing
14 information from Jenni Rivera's personal and private life to any third party, including the
1 5 Production Defendants, Univision, and/or HarperCollins. Injunctive relief is generally available
1 6 when it appears that: ( 1 ) "the plaintiff i s entitled to the relief demanded, and the relief, or any part
1 7 thereof, consists of restraining the commission or continuance of the act complained of. . . ; (2) "the
1 8 commission or continuance of some act during the litigation would produce ... great or irreparable
1 9 injury"; (3) "a party to the action is doing, or threatens, or is about to do, or is procuring or
20 suffering to be done, some act in violation of the rights of another party to the action respecting
2 1 the subject of the action"; (4) "when pecuniary compensation would not afford adequate relief';
22 and (5) "where it would be extremely difficult to ascertain the amount of compensation which
23 would afford adequate relief." Code Civ. Proc. 526(a)(l)-(5).
To obtain a temporary restraining order, an applicant must satisfy two statutory
24
25 requirements: ( 1 ) "that great or irreparable injury will result to the applicant before the matter can
26 be heard on notice"; and (2) that the opposing party is informed about the time and place of the
27 application. Code Civ. Proc. 527(c)(l)-(2). In deciding whether to issue a temporary restraining
Kendall Brill
& Kelly LLP
28 order, courts must assess "two interrelated factors": (1) "the likelihood that the plaintiff will
101 OD Santa Monica Blvd

Suite 172S
298292
Case No. BC633764

1 prevail on the merits at trial"; and (2) "the interim harm that the plaintiff is likely to sustain if the
2 restraining order were denied as compared to the harm that the defendant is likely to suffer if the
3 order were issued." Church of Christ in Hollywood v. Superior Court, 99 Cal. App. 4th 1244,
4
125 1 (2002) (internal quotations omitted).
Courts evaluate these two factors on a continuum such that "[t]he more likely it is that
6 plaintiffs will ultimately prevail, the less severe must be the harm that they allege will occur if the
7 injunction does not issue." Right Site Coalition v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., 160 Cal.
8 App. 4th 336, 338-339 (2008). Furthermore, "if the party seeking the injunction can make a
9 sufficiently strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits, the trial court has discretion to
10 issue the injunction notwithstanding that party's inability to show that the balance of harms tips in
11 his favor." Common Cause v. Board a/Supervisors, 49 Cal. 3d 432, 447 (1989).
B.
Plaintiff ls Very Likely to Prevail on the Merits of its Case Against Salgado
Plaintiff can show that it has a strong likelihood of prevailing on the merits of the instant
12
13
14
15
action against Salgado. This entitles Plaintiff to a TRO, even absent a showing that Plaintiffs
harms, without a TRO, outweigh the potential harms to Salgado as a result of a TRO.
As this Court has already noted, the breach of contract claim against Salgado hinges on
16
17
18
19
20
21
whether Plaintiff can establish that he signed the NDA and that the NDA is authentic. Court
Order, dated 12/5/ 16, at p. 2. The same is true with regard to the claim that Salgado breached a
fiduciary duty to Plaintiff by breaching the NDA, because, if authentic, the NDA explicitly
provides that Salgado holds the information that is subject to the NDA "in a fiduciary capacity for
the benefit of JRE and JRE' s subsidiaries and affiliates." R. Rivera Deel., Ex. 4 , 1.
1.
22
23
24
25
26
27
Kendall Brill
& Kelly LLP
28
to 1 OD Santa Monica Blvd

Su1le 1725
The NDA Is A Valid Contract
Plaintiff has offered significant evidence demonstrating that the NDA is genuine, far in
excess of the evidence needed to qualify for a TRO. Take Me Home Rescue v. Luri, 208 Cal. App.
4th 1342, 1351-52 (2012) (concluding that a moving party had shown a likelihood of success on
the merits on a breach of contract claim in part because the moving party provided enough
evidence that a valid contract existed between litigating parties). In Take Me Home Rescue,
although some factual disputes remained concerning the enforceability of the contract at issue, the
298292
Case No. BC633764

8
1 court determined that, as a preliminary matter, there was enough evidence establishing that a
2 contract existed to justify injunctive relief. See id
Here, much like in Take Me Home Rescue, there is strong proof that a valid contract
4 existed between Salgado and Plaintiff, as (1) Rosa Rivera Flores has provided sworn testimony
5 that she witnessed Salgado sign the NDA, R. Rivera Deel. ,r,r 7-8; (2) a well-qualified and well6 credentialed expert has corroborated the testimony of Ms. Rivera Flores by providing an un7 rebutted expert opinion that Salgado's signature on the NDA is Salgado's genuine signature, that
8 Salgado' s signature was not forged on the document, and that Salgado' s signature was not "cut
9 and pasted" from some other document and relocated to the NDA, Blanco Deel. Ex. 1 at pp. 4-7;
10 and (3) neither Salgado himself nor his paid expert have provided this Court with a plausible
11 explanation for how Salgado's genuine signature now appears on the NDA. Accordingly, there is
12 strong evidence that the NDA is genuine.
13
2.
Plaintiff Presents a Highly Meritorious Breach of Contract Claim
Having established that Salgado signed a valid NDA, there is no doubt that Salgado has
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
breached, and continues to breach, the NDA. As Plaintiff recently learned, Salgado is moving
forward to publish a book that will share intimate details of Ms. Rivera's life with the public.
Salgado also has teamed with the Production Defendants and Univision to produce a television
series based on her life that is set to air next month. Dugdale Deel. ,r,r 4-5, Exs. I-J. Indeed, as
described above, just last week Univision aired several promotional videos for this television
series in which Salgado appears and discloses private information from Ms. Rivera's life.
Dugdale Deel. ,r 4, Exs. B-H. These actions by Salgado clearly contravene the terms of the NDA.
3.
22
23
24
25
26
27
Kendall Brill
& Kelly LLP
28
1O100 S;mlil. Monica Blvd

Suite 1725
Plaintiff Has a Strong Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim
Plaintiffs breach of fiduciary duty claim also has merit. Salgado served in a fiduciary
capacity to Ms. Rivera and JRE as Ms. Rivera's manager and confidante. Moreover, the NDA
includes a provision in which Salgado admits that he holds the information that is subject to the
NDA "in a fiduciary capacity for the benefit of JRE and JRE's subsidiaries and affiliates." R.
Rivera Deel., Ex. 5 at p. 1. As discussed, Plaintiff has provided this Court with strong evidence to
show that a valid contract existed between Salgado and Plaintiff.
298292
Case No. BC633764

9
Salgado' s repeated revelations of confidential information demonstrate a breach of those
2 fiduciary obligations. As such, Plaintiff has a significant likelihood of prevailing on the merits of
3 its breach of fiduciary duty claim against Salgado.
Salgado Violated Section 17200 of the California Business and
Professions Code
The underlying breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims lay the foundation
4.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
for a meritorious claim against Salgado under California Business and Professions Code Section
17200. See Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. , 181 Cal. App. 4th 471, 489 (2010) ("A
breach of contract in tum may form the predicate for a [Section 17200] claim, provided it also
constitutes conduct that is unlawful, or unfair, or fraudulent.") "A business practice is unfair
within the meaning of the UCL if it violates established public policy or if it is immoral, unethical,
oppressive or unscrupulous and causes injury to consumers which outweighs its benefits." McKell
v. Washington Mut., Inc., 142 Cal. App. 4th 1457, 1473 (2006).
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Here, Salgado misrepresented his intentions regarding what he would do with Ms. Rivera's
private information when he signed the NDA, and such "[f]alse and misleading representations
necessarily constitute unfair business practices within the meaning of [section 17200]." People v.
Dollar Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc. , 211 Cal. App. 3d 119, 129 (1989). He revealed private information
for his own gain in breach of his fiduciary and contractual duties, which rises to the level of an
unethical and unfair business practice, and contravenes the "established public policy in California
which respects and promotes the freedom of private parties to contract." Brisbane Lodging, L.P.
v. Webcor Builders, Inc., 216 Cal. App. 4th 1249, 1262 (2013).
21
Accordingly, Plaintiff has a strong likelihood of success on the merits of all its claims.
22
C.
23
24
The Irreparable Harm Plaintiff Faces Significantly Outweighs Any Possible

Harm to Defendant Salgado Resulting From a TRO Requiring Him To
Comply With His Promises
By establishing its probable success on the merits in the instant action, Plaintiff is entitled
25 to a presumption that, absent a TRO, Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm that outweighs any
26 arguable harm to Salgado. Jay Bharat Developers, Inc. v. Minidis, 167 Cal. App. 4th 437, 444
27 (2008). Even without this presumption, the substantial and irreparable injury that Plaintiff will
Kendall Brill
& Kelly LLP
28 suffer in the absence of a TRO dramatically outweighs any purported harm that Salgado would
1 0 1 00 Santa Monica Blvd

Su1le 1 725
298292
Case No. BC633764

10
1 suffer from being held to his promise and fiduciary responsibility not to disclose information
2 about Jenni Rivera and members of her family.
Plaintiff Will Suffer Irreparable Injury In the Absence of a TRO
1.
At the time of Jenni Rivera's death, Salgado had access to the most intimate, non-public
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
details concerning her personal life, her business affairs, and the affairs of her family members. R.
Rivera Deel. 2. "The personal secrets of individuals are comparable to the trade secrets of
businesses." ITT Telecom Prod. Corp. v. Dooley, 214 Cal. App. 3d 307, 323 (1989). The
personal information about Ms. Rivera and her family that Salgado threatens to disclose has great
value, as demonstrated by the demand for music, television shows, books, and articles by and
about Ms. Rivera and her family. Salgado' s vile attempts to illegally sell scandalous rumors,
innuendo, and sensitive private information about his former client and confidante further
demonstrate the demand for and value of the information protected by the NDA as well as the
value of Ms. Rivera' s public goodwill, reputation, and right of publicity. Plaintiff owns the right
to exploit Ms. Rivera' s personal secrets, intellectual property, goodwill, reputation, and right of
publicity, both because it is the entity authorized to continue her business empire and because it is
the signatory to NDAs signed by individuals involved in Ms. Rivera's business and private life.
As such, Plaintiff alone is entitled to use such information or to maintain it as confidential forever.
Salgado is keenly aware of the need for, and value of, confidentiality surrounding Ms.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Rivera's personal and business affairs and of the fact that irreparable harm that would result to
JRE if such confidentiality is breached. Salgado was present when it was initially suggested that
all individuals involved with Ms. Rivera's personal life and business sign such agreements in
order to protect the confidential nature and value of information about Ms. Rivera. R. Rivera
Deel. 2-3. Knowing that a violation of the NDA would result in irreparable harm, Salgado
himself agreed that "JRE will not have an adequate remedy at law and shall be entitled to such
equitable and injunctive relief as may be available to restrain [Salgado] from the violation of the
provisions of this agreement." R. Rivera Deel. Ex. 4 2c.
In spite of Salgado' s awareness of these issues and of his contractual obligations, Salgado
27
Kendall Brill
& Kelly LLP
28
1 01OD Santa Monica Blvd

Suite 1725
has disclosed to the Production Defendants and Univision (and possibly HarperCollins) certain
298292
11
Case No. BC633764

1 information about Ms. Rivera and her family, though Plaintiff has been unable until very recently
2 to determine precisely what information has been disclosed by Salgado in violation of the NDA
3 and to determine to what extent he has disclosed such information. In the last few days, however,
4 Plaintiff has learned that Salgado, notwithstanding the pending lawsuit and his obligations under
5 the NDA, has disclosed highly confidential and sensational information and allegations about Ms.
6 Rivera and her family in the "Cronicas" episodes just aired on Univision. Dugdale Deel. ,i 4 Ex.
7 B-H. The information revealed in these episodes, which include on-camera interviews with
8 Salgado and stories that are purportedly based on his "insider" information, includes the following
9 stunning and vicious allegations:
10
11
12
13
14
Mr. Salgado discussing a scandalous rumor that Ms. Rivera's daughter Chiquis had
an affair with Jenni Rivera's former husband, Esteban Loaiza.
Mr. Salgado discussing the details of her family's struggle to recover from
multiple instances when Jenni Rivera's first husband, Trinidad Marin, sexually
assaulted several of Ms. Rivera's family members.
Mr. Salgado discussing the details surrounding Jenni Rivera's break from her
former manager, Gabriel Vazquez, based on Ms. Rivera's belief that he was
stealing money from her. Id.
As demonstrated by this outrageous breach of the NDA and his fiduciary duties in the last
15
16 few days, it is clear that unless Salgado is immediately and formally enjoined from disclosing any
17 information covered by the NDA, he will immediately and repeatedly disclose more and more
18 highly confidential and extremely sensitive information about Ms. Rivera and her family. Once
19 additional information and allegations are revealed and widely disseminated, the immense
20 resulting damage cannot be undone.
The disclosure of information covered by the NDA has caused and will cause irreparable
21
22 harm to JRE and Ms. Rivera's family (the beneficiaries of JRE's business revenues) in many
23 forms. First, the disclosure of such information in violation of the NDA will cause irreparable
24 emotional distress to Ms. Rivera's children (the beneficiaries of JRE's activities) and an
25 immeasurable loss of value of the personal secrets, goodwill, and reputation of Ms. Rivera. See
26 University of Southern California v. American Bar Ass 'n, 301 F. Supp. 2d 1129, 1138 (C.D. Cal.
27 2004) (holding that a law school's loss of goodwill and reputation from being stripped of ABA
Kendall Brill
& Kelly LLP
28 accreditation was sufficient to warrant a preliminary injunction). Second, the disclosure of this
1 0 1 00 Santa Monica Blvd_

Suite 1725
298292
12
Case No. BC633764

1 information would also prevent JRE from exploiting business opportunities to monetize
2 information about Ms. Rivera at a time and in a manner of JRE's choosing. See, e.g. , Donahue
3 Schriber Realty Grp., Inc. v. Nu Creation Outreach, 232 Cal. App. 4th 1 171, 1185 (2014) (finding
4 that loss of customer goodwill was sufficient to support a preliminary injunction); Netlist Inc v.
5 Diablo Techs. Inc, No. 13-CV-05962-YGR, 2015 WL 153724, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2015)
6 ("Evidence of lost business or business opportunities, as well as damage to goodwill, will satisfy
7 the requirement to show irreparable harm"). Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff cannot stop
8 Salgado from including intimate details about Ms. Rivera's personal, professional, and financial
9 life or about Ms. Rivera's family, all of which he promised to keep confidential. Once this
10 information is out in the open, the proverbial cat cannot be put back into the bag. Third, in
11 disclosing and threatening to disclose information protected by the NDA and rightfully exploited
12 only by JRE, Salgado is effectively competing with Plaintiff to earn money off of the reputation
13 and goodwill of Ms. Rivera and her family. Courts routinely enter TROs to prevent a competitor
14 from gaining an advantage over a competitor by violating the terms of an NDA. See id. ("An
15 injunction may be used to eliminate any unfair head start a defendant may have gained by
16 improper use of confidential information .. . .") Finally, the foregoing harm from further
17 disclosure cannot be measured, or at least will be very difficult to measure, in monetary damages.
18 See Cal. Civ. Proc. 526(a)(5); Dep 't ofFish & Game v. Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation Dist., 8
19 Cal. App. 4th 1554, 1564-65 (1992). An award of money damages after Plaintiffs reputation and
20 employment prospects are irreparably harmed and after Plaintiff is caused to suffer emotional
21 distress would be ineffectual and futile.
There can be no reasonable dispute that the further disclosure of information about Ms.
22
23 Rivera and her family by Salgado, and those associated with him, would result in irreparable harm
24 sufficient to justify issuance of a TRO.
2.
Salgado Will Not Suffer any Unwarranted Injury as a Result of an

Injunction
In stark contrast, Salgado will suffer no unwarranted harm from the issuance of a TRO that
25
26
27
Kendall Brill
& Kelly LLP
simply requires him to honor his contractual and fiduciary obligations not to disclose information
28
101 00 Santa Monica Blvd

Suite 1725
298292
13
Case No. BC633764

1 about Ms. Rivera and JRE. To the contrary, Salgado will merely be held to the agreement he
2 made to keep information about Ms. Rivera and her family confidential.
Salgado may attempt to argue that a TRO would deprive him of his First Amendment right
4 to produce and develop a television show or release a book about Ms. Rivera. This argument is
5 invalid as a matter of law. Although "[a]n order prohibiting a party from making or publishing
6 false statements is a classic type of an unconstitutional prior restraint," Evans v. Evans, 162 Cal.
7 App. 4th 1 157, 1167 (2008), the instant case does not raise First Amendment concerns because it
8 involves an NDA. In those cases where courts deny an injunction that seeks to control the
9 publication of information about an individual, there is no contract in place restraining the speech
10 at issue. See Gilbert v. Nat'/ Enquirer, Inc. , 43 Cal. App. 4th 1135, 1145 (1996). Here, unlike in
11 Gilbert, Salgado validly waived his First Amendment rights by executing the NDA.
12
In this regard, Courts routinely enforce valid contracts restricting expression, even if such
13 expression would otherwise be protected by the First Amendment. See ITT Telecom, 214 Cal.
14 App. 3d at 319 ("Moreover, it is possible to waive even First Amendment free speech rights by
15 contract."); Snepp v. United States, 444 U.S. 507 ( 1980) (CIA employee violated employment
16 nondisclosure agreement by seeking to publish information obtained in his capacity as an
17 employee); In re Steinberg, 148 Cal. App. 3d 14, 22 (1983) (filmmaker violated contract
18 providing that before publishing a film, he had to submit his film for editing). If courts did not
19 enforce such contracts, the law of trade secrets would not exist because contracts protecting trade
20 secrets necessarily prevent an individual from publicly disclosing the trade secret. See DVD Copy
21 Control Ass 'n, Inc. v. Bunner, 3 1 Cal. 4th 864, 881 (2003) (upholding an agreement protecting a
22 trade secret against a First Amendment challenge).
Salgado may also argue that his continued involvement in a book deal or the television
23
24 show exposes Plaintiff to potential liability from the Production Defendants or others such as
25 Univision or a book publisher. This argument, however, is wholly unavailing. Salgado began to
26 develop a book and the television show and entered into agreements related thereto despite the
27 existence of the NDA and knowing that Plaintiff would seek to enforce the NDA. Salgado
Kendall Brill
& Kelly LLP
28 continued to disclose information protected by the NDA despite pre-lawsuit warnings from
1 0 1 00 Santa Monica Blvd

Suite 1 725
298292
14
Case No. BC633764

1 Plaintiff, the initiation of this lawsuit, the cratering of his "forgery" defense, and the full
2 knowledge that he agreed to injunctive relief as a remedy to breach of the NDA. Any potential
3 liability he faces is a direct result of his premeditated decision assume such a risk. If the court
4 were to refrain from issuing a TRO in this case, individuals like Salgado could simply breach an
5 NDA or other contract with abandon and then argue that they have invested too much money and
6 time in breaching it. Under such a scenario, contracts like the NDA would be worthless.
7
Accordingly, the significant harm to Plaintiff if Salgado is permitted to continue breaching
8 the NDA significantly outweighs any purported harm that Salgado might suffer through a TRO
9 that merely requires him to adhere to the terms of the NDA he signed.
D.
10
Plaintiff notes that the scope of the TRO requested in this case is certain and definite, as
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
The Scope of a TRO
required by California law. See People v. Custom Craft Carpets, Inc. , 159 Cal. App. 3d 676, 681
(1984). Plaintiff only seeks a TRO that expressly enforces the terms of the NDA. R. Rivera
Deel., Ex. 5 at 1-2. The remedy is set forth in detail in Plaintiffs Proposed Order. This remedy
sought is already set out in the contract between Plaintiff and Salgado. As the NDA states: "In the
event of a breach or threatened breach by Recipient [Salgado] any obligation under this paragraph,
Recipient [Salgado] acknowledges that JRE will not have an adequate remedy at law and shall be
entitled to such equitable and injunctive relief as may be available to restrain Recipient [Salgado]
from the violation of the provisions of this agreement." Id. 2(c).
IV.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant its Motion for a Temporary Restraining
Order and request for an Order to Show Cause re Preliminary Injunction.

DATED: December 20, 2016
KENDALL BRILL & KELLY LLP
24
By:
25
Robert E. Dugdale
Attorneys for Plaintiff
26
27
Kendall Brill
& Kelly LLP
28

Suite 1725
298292
Case No. BC633764

15

Rivera Ex Parte TRO Application

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rivera Ex Parte TRO Application

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 KENDALL BRILL & KELLY LLP

Bert H. Deixler (70614)

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT

PETE SALGADO, an individual; LATIN

Case No. BC633764

PLAINTIFF JENNI RIVERA

Hon. Michael J. Raphael

Action Filed: September 12, 2016

10100 Santa 1'vlonica Blvd

Case No. BC633764

TO THE PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:

JRE or its designees;

10100 Santa Monica Blvd

Case No. BC633764

employees, agents, representatives, or persons or entities working in concert with them;

Marin , or Janney Marin;

10100 Santa Monica Blvd

Case No. BC633764

JRE or its designees;

10100 Sanla Monica Blvd

Case No. BC633764

employees, agents, representatives, or persons or entities working in concert with them;

Marin , or Janney Marin;

10100 Santa Monica BlvcJ

Case No. BC633764

24 James G. Sammataro, Esq.

10100 Santa Monica Blvd

Case No. BC633764

1 Attornevs Defendants BTF Media. LLC

DATED: December 20, 2016

KENDALL BRILL & KELLY LLP

1O100 Santa Mom ca Blvd

Case No. BC633764

FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................ 3

Univision Publically Announces That Salgado and the Production

Specific Evidence Emerges This Month Proving that Salgado Is Engaged in

The Legal Standard Governing A Temporary Restraining Order .............................. 7

The NDA Is A Valid Contract ....................................................................... 8

Plaintiff Presents a Highly Meritorious Breach of Contract Claim ............... 9

Plaintiff Has a Strong Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim ................................ 9

Salgado Violated Section 17200 of the California Business and

The Irreparable Harm Plaintiff Faces Significantly Outweighs Any Possible

Plaintiff Will Suffer Irreparable Injury In the Absence of a TRO ............... 11

Salgado Will Not Suffer any Unwarranted Injury as a Result of an

The Scope of a TR0 ................................................................................................. 15

10100 Santa Mornca Blvd

Case No. BC633764

4 Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. ,

24 Jay Bharat Developers, Inc. v. Minidis,

1 O 1 00 Sttnta Monica Blvd

Lrn A 1igeles, CA 90067

Case No. BC633764

1 Right Site Coalition v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist.,

Business and Professions Code 17200 ....................................... ............................................... 3, 10

Code of Civil Procedure

10100 Sanla Monrca Blvd

Case No. BC633764

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

1 0 1 00 San1a Momca Blvd

Case No. BC633764

As a result of Salgado's anticipated, upcoming breaches of the NDA - in presenting a

10100 Santa Monica Blvd

Case No. BC633764