James Hardin Attorney

First Admitted: 1999, California

Professional Webpage: https://hardinemploymentlaw.com/about-hardin/

Verdicts/Settlements (Case Results):

James helped obtain a settlement of $2.5 million for employee in wrongful termination case., 2023
James helped obtain a class action settlement of over $11 million dollars against a college for alleged negligent misrepresentations made to students, 2015
James helped obtain a class action settlement of over $10 million dollars against a nutritional supplement company for false advertising
James helped obtain a $6.8 million judgment in an unfair competition case involving claims of misappropriation of trade secrets, conspiracy, and intentional interference with prospective advantage.
James helped obtain a judgment at trial in excess of $7.5 million on a cross-complaint for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty and a judgment of no liability on the complaint.
James helped obtain a $51 million cash settlement for a technology company against its supplier in a case involving claims for breach of contract, breach of warranty, and fraud.

Honors/Awards:

Awarded, California Super Lawyer, Super Lawyers, 2023
Awarded, Best Lawyer and Best Law Firm, Best Lawyers, 2023
Awarded, Elite Lawyer, Elite Lawyer, 2023
Awarded, America’s Top 100 High Stakes Litigators, America's Top 100, 2022
Awarded, Best Lawyer and Best Law Firm, Best Lawyers, 2022
Awarded, 10 Best Labor and Employment Attorneys, American Institute of Legal Counsel, 2022
Awarded, America’s Top 100 High Stakes Litigators, America's Top 100, 2021
Awarded, Best Lawyer and Best Law Firm, Best Lawyers, 2021
Awarded, America’s Top 100 High Stakes Litigators, America's Top 100, 2020
Awarded, Best Lawyer and Best Law Firm, Best Lawyers, 2020
Awarded, America’s Top 100 High Stakes Litigators, America's Top 100, 2019
Awarded, Best Lawyer and Best Law Firm, Best Lawyers, 2019
Awarded, America’s Top 100 High Stakes Litigators, America's Top 100, 2018
Awarded, Best Lawyer and Best Law Firm, Best Lawyers, 2018
Awarded, Top 100 Labor and Employment Lawyer, American Society of Legal Advocates
Awarded, Top 100 Lawyer, Distinguished Attorney Magazine
Awarded, Top 100 Employment Attorney in California, National Advocates
Awarded, America’s Top 100 High Stakes Litigators, America's Top 100, 2017
Awarded, Top Attorneys, OC Metro Magazine, 2014
Established in 1993, the Million Dollar Advocates Forum is one of the most prestigious groups of trial lawyers in the United States. Membership is limited to attorneys who have won million and multi-million dollar verdicts and settlements. There are over 4000 members throughout the country. Fewer than 1% of U.S. lawyers are members. , Million Dollar Advocate, Million Dollar Advocates Forum, 2013
Established in 1993, the Million Dollar Advocates Forum (which includes the Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum) is one of the most prestigious groups of trial lawyers in the United States. Membership is limited to attorneys who have won million and multi-million dollar verdicts and settlements. There are over 4000 members throughout the country. Fewer than 1% of U.S. lawyers are members. , MultiMillion Dollar Advocate, MultiMillion Dollar Advocate Forum, 2013

Scholarly Lectures/Writings:

"California Trade Secret Litigation" (2015) is a legal practice guide for attorneys involved in trade secret litigation in California. In this practice guide, James Hardin provides an in-depth analysis of trade secret law in California, a state on the cutting-edge of trade secret jurisprudence. The book dissects and organizes all of the key issues, cases, and statutes relevant to trade secret litigation into an accessible outline format that provides legal professionals with up-to-date details on all aspects of the trade secret litigation process., Author, California Trade Secret Litigation Practice Guide, Word Association Publishers, 2015
The black letter law that indefinite promises are unenforceable has been a valuable tool for defendants in litigation, particularly employers defending against employee claims of vague or aspirational statements allegedly made in the workplace (e.g., “if you keep up the good work, there will always be a place for you at the company”). But a recent opinion from the state Court of Appeal, Moncada v. West Coast Quartz Corp., may have moved the dividing line between fatally indefinite statements and enforceable promises in favor of employees." , Author, Some Promises Are Enforceable, It Seems, Daily Journal, 2013
For the last 20 years or so, the general consensus (including within the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals) has been to adhere to an “exceedingly strict” rule on tacking... , Author, Trademark Tacking Surprise, Daily Journal, 2013
What happens when a party seeks a preliminary injunction for misappropriation of a “customer list”? Most often, the main fight is over whether an injunction should issue, but an equally important fight is over the proper scope of an injunction. , Author, Trade Secrets are Key in Customer Service Cases, Daily Journal, 2013
The initial stage of a trade secrets case is critical. The complaint not only gives the defendant initial notice of “facts” regarding the alleged trade secrets and how they were supposedly misappropriated, but it also often serves as the launching point for an early motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. , Author, Pleading & Identifying Trade Secrets in California, Law360, 2013
A ”key issue in most trademark cases is whether a trade name or trade dress is confusingly similar to another. To prove “confusion,” litigants generally present two types of evidence: (1) one or more consumer surveys; and (2) direct evidence of actual consumer confusion. Although survey evidence can be powerful, it has many drawbacks including being expensive, easily manipulable (and therefore at- tackable on cross-examination), complex (and therefore often not jury-friendly), and unpredictable (i.e., the outcome of a validly designed survey is inherently uncertain)…”less , Author, Unravel the Confusion Over Hearsay in Trademark Litigation, Daily journal, 2013
“Companies operating in California are often incorporated out of state. If a foreign company or its directors or officers are sued in California, a threshold question is often which state’s laws apply to the specific claims asserted. The “internal affairs doctrine” is a conflict of laws principle holding that only the state of incorporation should regulate a corporation’s internal affairs. And if — pursuant to the internal affairs doctrine — the incorporating state’s laws apply (e.g., Delaware law), the result may be very different than what one might expect under California law.”, Author, Internal Affairs: An Elusive Doctrine, Daily Journal, 2013
A discussion of the business judgment rule as it applies to corporate officers. , Author, CA's Business Judgment Rule is Not a Defense for Corporate Officers, California Lawyer, 2013
An interview with attorney James Hardin on issues that startups and entreprenuers should consider., Author, Legal Troubleshooting for Startups and Entrepreneurs, Legalocity Radio, 2013
Although trade secrets can come in many different forms – such as a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process – one form that is frequently litigated is a customer list. Customer lists may be protectable as trade secrets under certain circumstances, but the case results are often fact-driven and hard to reconcile with each other. However, a close reading of the leading California cases reveals several key or decisive factors that lead to customer lists being deemed as protectable trade secrets. , Author, Customer Lists -- When They Become Trade Secrets, Corporate Disputes Magazine, 2014

Industry Groups:

Million Dollar Advocate
MultiMillion Dollar Advocate
Orange County Bar Association
Orange County Trial Lawyers Association

Contact James

All the below fields are required