Summary
The United States District Court for the Southern District of California grants Mu Tech, Inc.’s motion for a preliminary injunction against Catherine Chan Kok Yin, Thomas Less Cheuk Wai, Majestic Plan Investments Limited, and Belton Technology, Inc. The order concludes that the court may issue interim relief while related disputes proceed in Hong Kong arbitration and finds a sufficient showing of likely success on claims involving trade secret misappropriation and related contractual and business interference allegations. The excerpt discusses the preliminary-injunction factors, including irreparable harm arising from alleged loss of market position, investors, clients, and trade-secret protection.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court had authority to issue interim injunctive relief while disputes under the Guarantee Agreement were pending before the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre.
- Whether Plaintiff demonstrated the likelihood of success or serious questions on its Defense of Trade Secrets Act claim, including possession, misappropriation, and resulting harm.
- Whether Plaintiff satisfied the Winter preliminary-injunction factors on its claims for breach of fiduciary duty, self-dealing, breach of contract, and tortious interference with prospective business interests.
- Whether the injunction could bind persons in active concert or participation with a party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2)(C), and whether a bond was required.
Holdings
- A district court may issue interim injunctive relief on arbitrable claims when the arbitration agreement and applicable arbitration rules do not bar judicial interim relief and the injunction is necessary to preserve the status quo and the meaningfulness of arbitration.
- Plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success, or at minimum serious questions, on its Defense of Trade Secrets Act claim because it sufficiently identified a trade secret, alleged misappropriation through unauthorized acquisition or use, and demonstrated threatened or actual harm.
- Plaintiff satisfied the preliminary-injunction factors on the trade-secret, fiduciary-duty, self-dealing, breach-of-contract, and tortious-interference claims.
- Mu Tech had standing to pursue ATL's assigned claims, and the court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the related state-law claims.
- The injunction could bind the named Defendants as persons in active concert or participation with Belton Technology, and the court set the required bond at zero because Defendants presented no evidence of likely damages.
Key quotations
“[A] district court may issue interim injunctive relief on arbitrable claims if interim relief is necessary to preserve the status quo and the meaningfulness of the arbitration process—provided, of course, that the requirements for granting injunctive relief are otherwise satisfied.” (at 3-4)
“A party seeking a preliminary injunction must establish: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury that is likely to result in the absence of relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in its favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest.” (at 6)
“The purpose of pleading trade secrets with specificity is to provide the defendant with “concrete identification” of the trade secret so that the defendant may prepare a rebuttal.” (at 8)
“For the above reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.” (at 22)
Factual background
Mu Tech is the exclusive United States assignee of intellectual-property and litigation rights from Asia Top Loyalty (ATL), which operates a loyalty-rewards and e-commerce platform. Mu Tech alleged that former ATL board members Catherine Yin and Thomas Lee, together with Belton Technology and Majestic Plan Investments, transferred or disclosed ATL's software, confidential information, and client lists and supported a competing entity called Asia Top Loyalty Alliance. Mu Tech alleged that the conduct caused loss of clients and investors, threatened ATL's public offering and financial viability, and exposed Mu Tech and ATL to related litigation.
Procedural history
Mu Tech filed the action on October 23, 2024, asserting trade-secret misappropriation under the Defense of Trade Secrets Act, breach of fiduciary duty, self-dealing, breach of contract, and tortious interference. Mu Tech moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction on December 9, 2024; the court denied temporary emergency relief on December 13, 2024, but set a briefing schedule for the preliminary-injunction motion. After opposition, reply, and oral argument, the court granted the preliminary injunction on September 29, 2025.