Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 44

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-407

Effect on other laws

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. Except as provided in subsection B, this chapter displaces conflicting tort, restitutionary and other laws of this state providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret.

B. This chapter does not affect:

1. Contractual remedies, whether or not based on misappropriation of a trade secret.

2. Other civil remedies that are not based on misappropriation of a trade secret.

3. Criminal remedies, whether or not based on misappropriation of a trade secret.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Orca Communications v. Ann Noder Et vir/pitch Public
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Orca Communications v. Ann Noder Et vir/pitch Public (2014) ariz · cites it 13× “§ 44-407. B. ¶ 9 If a statute is unambiguous, we apply its terms without resorting to other tools of statutory interpretation, unless doing so leads to impossible or absurd results.”
HTS, Inc. v. Boley (2013) azd · cites it 5× “AUTSA Preemption The AUTSA, Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 44-407, preempts “conflicting tort, restitutionary and other laws of this state that provide civil remedies for misappropriation of trade secrets.”
Orca Communications Unlimited, LLC v. Noder (2013) arizctapp · cites it 6× “AR.S. § 44-407. ¶ 29 The AUTSA’s preemption provision is identical to the provision adopted by most states.”
Unisource Worldwide, Inc. v. Swope (2013) azd · cites it 7× “A.R.S. § 44-407. It does not affect “[o]ther civil remedies that are not based on misappropriation of a trade secret.”
W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. GI Dynamics, Inc. (2012) azd · cites it 8× “A.R.S. § 44-407(A). Gore claims that the AUTSA preempts GID’s Mass.”
FIRETRACE USA, LLC v. Jesclard (2010) azd · cites it 3× “Preemptive Effect of the Arizona Uniform Trade Secrets Act Defendants argue the claims for unfair competition, unjust enrichment, *1047 breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the duty of loyalty, and tortious interference are prohibited by the preemption provision of the Arizona…”
Calisi v. Unified Financial Services, LLC (2013) arizctapp · cites it 2× “AR.S. § 44-407 (2003) (UTSA displaces “conflicting tort, restitutionary and other laws .”
Efund Capital Partners v. Pless (2007) calctapp “See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 44-407 (statutory tort remedy does not effect contractual remedies, whether or not based on misappropriation of trade secrets).”
Tracer Research Corp. v. National Environmental Services Company, Doing Business as Nesco Lab One Analytical, Inc. Eddy (1994) ca9 “See Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 44-407 (statutory tort remedy does not affect contractual remedies, whether or not based on misappropriation of trade secrets).”
Universal Engraving, Inc. v. Metal Magic, Inc. (2015) ca9 · cites it 8× “The district court dismissed UEI’s claims, other than the claim under the Arizona Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“AUTSA”), on the ground that those claims were precluded by Ariz. Rev. Stat § 44-407. At the time of the dismissal, the court did not have the benefit of the subsequent…”
Modulus Global Incorporated v. Quintzy FZE LLC (2023) azd · cites it 5× “§ 44-407 “displaces only conflicting tort claims for ‘misappropriation’ of a ‘trade 8 secret,’ terms AUTSA specifically defines, and leaves undisturbed claims ‘that are not 9 based on misappropriation of a trade secret.’” Orca, 337 P.”
Cadence Bank v. Heritage Family Offices LLP (2024) azd · cites it 5× “2014); A.R.S. § 44-407. The Arizona 18 Supreme Court has explained A.”
Show all 20 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-407(A) — 7 cases
Orca Communications v. Ann Noder Et vir/pitch Public (2014) ariz “§ 44-407. B. ¶ 9 If a statute is unambiguous, we apply its terms without resorting to other tools of statutory interpretation, unless doing so leads to impossible or absurd results.”
HTS, Inc. v. Boley (2013) azd “AUTSA Preemption The AUTSA, Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 44-407, preempts “conflicting tort, restitutionary and other laws of this state that provide civil remedies for misappropriation of trade secrets.”
W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. GI Dynamics, Inc. (2012) azd “A.R.S. § 44-407(A). Gore claims that the AUTSA preempts GID’s Mass.”
Orca Communications Unlimited, LLC v. Noder (2013) arizctapp “AR.S. § 44-407. ¶ 29 The AUTSA’s preemption provision is identical to the provision adopted by most states.”
Yerbaé, LLC v. Carl Sweat, et al. (2026) azd
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-407(B) — 4 cases
Orca Communications v. Ann Noder Et vir/pitch Public (2014) ariz “§ 44-407. B. ¶ 9 If a statute is unambiguous, we apply its terms without resorting to other tools of statutory interpretation, unless doing so leads to impossible or absurd results.”
HTS, Inc. v. Boley (2013) azd “AUTSA Preemption The AUTSA, Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 44-407, preempts “conflicting tort, restitutionary and other laws of this state that provide civil remedies for misappropriation of trade secrets.”
Unisource Worldwide, Inc. v. Swope (2013) azd “A.R.S. § 44-407. It does not affect “[o]ther civil remedies that are not based on misappropriation of a trade secret.”
W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. GI Dynamics, Inc. (2012) azd “A.R.S. § 44-407(A). Gore claims that the AUTSA preempts GID’s Mass.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-407(B)(1) — 1 case
Diazteca v. Palenque (2018) arizctapp
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-407(B)(2) — 1 case
Orca Communications Unlimited, LLC v. Noder (2013) arizctapp “AR.S. § 44-407. ¶ 29 The AUTSA’s preemption provision is identical to the provision adopted by most states.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-407(B)(l) — 1 case
W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. GI Dynamics, Inc. (2012) azd “A.R.S. § 44-407(A). Gore claims that the AUTSA preempts GID’s Mass.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.