Elinor Shapiro v. Hasbro, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELINOR SHAPIRO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HASBRO, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 15-56661
D.C. No. 2:15-cv-02964-BRO-
AJW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Beverly Reid O’Connell, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 7, 2016
Pasadena, California
Before: GOULD, MELLOY**, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Elinor Shapiro appeals the district court’s denial of her motion for a
preliminary injunction in her action against Hasbro, Inc. Shapiro alleges
misappropriation of trade secrets under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act
FILED
JUN 30 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable Michael J. Melloy, Senior Circuit Judge for the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

(CUTSA), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 3426–3426.11. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.
The district court found that the alleged trade secrets were in the public
domain, and that the alleged trade secrets were independently created by Hasbro
before Shapiro presented her Wishables line to Hasbro representatives. These
findings both were amply supported by the record.
Based on the finding of independent creation, the district court correctly
concluded that Hasbro had not engaged in misappropriation of alleged trade
secrets. The district court also correctly concluded that because the alleged trade
secrets were “generally known to the public or to other persons,” that they did not
qualify as trade secrets under CUTSA. See Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.1(d)(1). Given
these findings, Shapiro’s trade secret claims do not present a substantial likelihood
of success, and indeed do not raise “serious questions” on the merits. All. for the
Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131–32 (9th Cir. 2011). Additionally, as
the district court reasoned, the balance of hardships to be assessed does not tip
strongly in favor of Shapiro. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying the motion for a preliminary injunction. See Winter v. Nat.
Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); All. for the Wild Rockies, 632 F.3d at
1131–32.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --