Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, TORT CLAIMS—D.N.J.: Sun Noodle granted TRO in a trade secrets dispute against competitor, (Sep 15, 2026)

By Carolin Dennis, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.

The court found ample evidence for misappropriation of trade secrets by the noodle company’s former employees.

In a trade secrets proceeding, the federal district court in New Jersey granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) in favor of the plaintiffs because they satisfied all the factors for injunctive relief. The district court also granted the plaintiffs’ motion for expedited discovery (H&U, Inc. v. Komolo, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-10454-JXN-JBC (D.N.J. Sep. 8, 2026)).

Background. H&U, Inc. d/b/a Sun Noodle (Sun Noodle) makes and sells Japanese noodles to restaurants and supermarkets. Sun Noodle spent decades developing secret noodle recipes. Those recipes are “proprietary, fiercely guarded, and stored only in a Company-secured and password protected SharePoint database.” Only a few Sun Noodle employees have access to the SharePoint folder containing the secret recipes. Sun Noodle also keeps its confidential customer lists in a secured system available only to certain employees. Komolo, Inc. (Komolo) buys and sells food products, including noodles. Komolo started purchasing noodles from Sun Noodle in 2017. Komolo is set to open its own noodle-making factory in late September 2026. Sun Noodle claimed that two of its former employees, Yasuhisa Tanaka (Tanaka) and Makoto Sato (Sato), took Sun Noodle’s secret recipes, customer lists, and factory specifications, and then left to work for Komolo. Tanaka had started working for Sun Noodle New Jersey, LLC (SNNJ) in February 2017, as a Maintenance Manager and left Sun Noodle in March 2025 to work for Komolo as a Factory Manager. Sato had started working for Sun Noodle in June 2018 as a custodian. In May 2026, Sun Noodle promoted Sato to Director of Innovation and Commercialization. Two months later, Sato resigned from Sun Noodle. Shortly after Sato resigned, Tanaka sent an email to Sato’s Sun Noodle address. Tanaka’s email contained an Excel spreadsheet (Spreadsheet) titled “Ramen Purchase.” The Spreadsheet, which Tanaka created after leaving Sun Noodle, was replete with Sun Noodle’s trade secrets and confidential and proprietary information.

Sun Noodle and SNNJ (collectively, plaintiffs) sued Komolo, TBK Holdings (TBK), Tanaka, and Sato (collectively, defendants) for misappropriating trade secrets, in violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), and the New Jersey Trade Secrets Act (NJTSA); misappropriation of confidential information; unfair competition; breach of fiduciary duty against Sato; and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage; and violation of the New Jersey Computer Related Offenses Act (NJCROA) against Tanaka and Sato. The plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent the defendants from using, disclosing, sending, or distributing Sun Noodle’s trade secrets, and to compel them to return or destroy those trade secrets, and an expedited discovery motion.

Likelihood of success on the trade secrets claims. The court found that Sun Noodle sufficiently alleged that its recipes and client lists are trade secrets. Sun Noodle also took extensive measures to keep its recipes and client lists secret, placing that information in secure databases available only to a few employees. Moreover, both the recipes and client lists have independent economic value in not being generally known. Sun Noodle spent decades refining its noodle recipe, which it claimed gave it an edge in the competitive craft ramen market. Likewise, client lists are protectible trade secrets. Sun Noodle uses its recipes and customer lists to make and sell noodles to a national market.

The court also noted that Sato improperly acquired Sun Noodle’s trade secrets as his employment agreement prohibited him from copying any confidential information without permission, which is exactly what Sun Noodle sufficiently alleged he did in duplicating Sun Noodle’s recipes and customer lists to his personal computer. Tanaka also acquired Sun Noodle’s trade secrets when he was no longer working for Sun Noodle, and should have known those trade secrets were acquired improperly. The plaintiffs alleged that Tanaka and Sato either have disclosed or will disclose those secrets to Komolo. The defendants did not dispute that both Tanaka and Sato misappropriated Sun Noodle trade secrets and neither Tanaka nor Sato submitted declarations in opposition to the TRO motion. The defendants argued the arbitration clauses in Tanaka and Sato’s employment contracts render a TRO inappropriate. However, the court found that those arbitration clauses are irrelevant to this motion. In addition, as the defendants have not yet moved to compel arbitration, the issue is not before the court. Accordingly, the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their DTSA and NJTSA claims.

Irreparable harm. The defendants argued the plaintiffs’ failed to show the threat of irreparable harm because: the plaintiffs have not alleged any confidential information has been exposed to third parties; neither Tanaka nor Sato used Sun Noodle’s trade secrets to get jobs with Komol; neither Tanaka nor Sato are poised to use the information they acquired because they are not working to help Komolo develop noodles; Komolo has its own noodle recipe and has no interest in Sun Noodle’s recipe; the plaintiffs have not shown any harm has occurred in the year since Tanaka started working for Komolo; and Komolo agreed to a forensic review of relevant systems, accounts, and devices. The court found that these arguments lacked merit.

To start, whether Tanaka or Sato have already revealed Sun Noodle’s trade secrets is irrelevant because the irreparable harm inquiry concerns threat of future harm, not past harm. Next, Komolo’s assertions that (a) Tanaka and Sato are not helping Komolo develop noodles, and (b) Komolo is not interested in using Sun Noodle’s recipe do not compel a different conclusion. Citing NVR, Inc. v. Davern, No. 15-5059, 2015 WL 9450831, (D.N.J. Dec. 23, 2015) the court explained that a party may not defeat an otherwise proper application for an injunction by merely abandoning conduct that if continued or completed would have constituted irreparable harm. Further, even if the court were to credit these self-serving assertions, Tanaka and Sato misappropriated more than just Sun Noodle’s recipes, they also took, among other things, factory blueprints and customer lists.

Lastly, Komolo’s willingness to cooperate in a forensic information review does not negate the threat of irreparable harm. The defendants cited, The Imagine Group, LLC v. Biscanti, No. 25-1137, 2025 WL 2936785 (D. Del. Oct. 15, 2025), where, an employee downloaded a proprietary consultant report before resigning and working for a competitor. The employee, however, submitted a sworn declaration stating he was “willing to delete the report if and when authorized to do so by the Court or agreement of the parties.” In addition, the competitor instructed the employee not to use or bring with him to the competitor any confidential information or property that belongs to his former employer. Neither Tanaka nor Sato have submitted sworn declarations to this effect, nor has Komolo certified that it instructed either man to not use or bring any confidential information. Therefore, the plaintiffs met their burden of showing a threat of irreparable harm.

Balance of hardships. The court found that the balance of hardships tipped towards the plaintiffs because the harm to plaintiffs was substantial and irreparable due to the potential loss of the entire value of its trade secrets should Tanaka or Sato intentionally or inadvertently disclose them to Komolo. The defendants will suffer little, if any, harm from a TRO. The court also noted that any harm Tanaka and Sato might suffer is “a predictable consequence” of willfully misappropriating Sun Noodle’s trade secrets.

Public interest. The court found the public’s interest in the enforcement and protection of trade secrets and confidentiality agreements weighed in favor of the plaintiffs.

Expedited discovery. The plaintiffs sought the following expedited discovery from the defendants: (1) the right to serve each defendant with up to seven requests for production; (2) the right to serve each defendant with up to five interrogatories; (3) and the right to take one deposition of each defendant. The court found this request reasonable under the circumstances, particularly where the plaintiffs are entitled to a TRO.

Accordingly, the court granted the motion for a TRO and expedited discovery.

The Case is No. 2:26-cv-10454-JXN-JBC.

Judge: Neals, J.

Attorneys: Ian Wahrenbrock (Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton) for H&U, Inc. d/b/a Sun Noodle. Christopher J. Carcich (Carcich O'Shea) for Komolo, Inc.

Companies: H&U, Inc.; Sun Noodle; Komolo, Inc.

Cases: TortClaims Procedure RemediesDamages EvidenceDiscovery NewJerseyNews