The Allworth Financial lawsuit against former advisor Jill Pivato, filed in May 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, ended quietly in June 2025 when Allworth voluntarily dismissed the case after it had been sent to private arbitration. The firm had accused Pivato of stealing confidential client data and violating a non-solicitation clause when she left to join rival Creative Planning, but the federal court never ruled on the merits, and the docket does not disclose whether the arbitration produced a settlement or simply fizzled.
What Allworth Accused the Advisor of Doing
Pivato joined Allworth’s Folsom, California office as a financial advisor in December 2019 and resigned on April 21, 2023, moving to Creative Planning, a Kansas-based registered investment advisor managing over $210 billion in client assets.1RIAbiz. California Judge Is Siding With $210-Billion Kansas RIA Over $16-Billion California RIA in Poaching Case
Allworth’s complaint alleged that before resigning, Pivato downloaded confidential client lists and financial account information, emailed materials to personal accounts, and uploaded files to a personal Dropbox. The firm said she then used those materials to contact clients and divert their business, costing Allworth 33 household accounts and more than $40 million in assets under management. Among the evidence was a text message to a client reading “there is more to the story,” which Allworth characterized as solicitation.1RIAbiz. California Judge Is Siding With $210-Billion Kansas RIA Over $16-Billion California RIA in Poaching Case
Pivato denied wrongdoing. Her attorney, Shawn Larsen, said she had “complied with all of her contractual and legal obligations.” In a sworn declaration, Pivato told the court she had emailed documents to herself to work around IT restrictions while traveling, not to steal data, and that after leaving Allworth she deleted the digital files, burned physical documents, and returned company property. She also said she was willing to arbitrate as her employment contract required. Creative Planning CEO Peter Mallouk confirmed her employment but declined to comment on the case.1RIAbiz. California Judge Is Siding With $210-Billion Kansas RIA Over $16-Billion California RIA in Poaching Case
The Legal Claims
Allworth filed the case on May 3, 2023, as No. 2:23-cv-00829-TLN-KJN, with four counts:2Broke and Broker. Allworth Financial LP v. Pivato, Order
- Federal trade-secret misappropriation under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1836.
- State trade-secret misappropriation under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Cal. Civil Code § 3426.
- Breach of contract, based on a three-year non-solicitation clause in Pivato’s employment agreement.
- Unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code § 17200.
Why the Court Refused Emergency Relief
Allworth asked for a temporary restraining order the same day it filed suit. On May 19, 2023, Judge Troy L. Nunley denied the request, finding that Allworth had not shown a likelihood of “imminent and irreparable harm” under the Supreme Court’s Winter standard.2Broke and Broker. Allworth Financial LP v. Pivato, Order
The judge cited several weaknesses. The alleged solicitation had happened roughly three weeks before the hearing and appeared to have stopped. Pivato had sworn she no longer possessed any Allworth materials, and Creative Planning had taken steps to ensure no trade secrets were in use. The loss of $40 million in managed assets and 33 households, while real, was a quantifiable economic injury rather than the kind of hard-to-measure harm that justifies emergency relief. On reputational damage, the court said Allworth had offered only “platitudes.”3Broke and Broker. TRO Irreparable Harm A separate request to forensically image Pivato’s electronic devices was also denied.4Midpage. Allworth Financial LP v. Pivato
How the Case Actually Ended
On November 1, 2023, the court granted Pivato’s motion to stay the federal case pending arbitration, honoring the arbitration clause in her employment contract.5PACER Monitor. Allworth Financial LP v. Pivato
Then, silence. For nearly 18 months, nothing was filed. In May 2025, the court ordered a joint status report; when neither side responded, it issued an order to show cause on June 6, 2025, threatening $250 sanctions against both attorneys. Six days later, on June 12, 2025, Allworth filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The court terminated the case the next day, with each party bearing its own fees and costs.5PACER Monitor. Allworth Financial LP v. Pivato
Because the dismissal was without prejudice, Allworth technically retains the right to refile, though the practical odds shrink with time. The public record does not say whether the parties settled in arbitration or simply walked away.
Why California Non-Solicitation Clauses Are Hard to Enforce
The contract theory at the center of Allworth’s case runs into a difficult legal environment. California Business and Professions Code § 16600 voids contracts that restrain a person from engaging in a lawful profession, and the California Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP struck down a customer non-solicitation clause on that basis. Federal courts have extended the reasoning since.6Proskauer. Future Not Looking Bright for Calif Employee Nonsolicits
Two laws that took effect on January 1, 2024, SB 699 and AB 1076, tightened those protections further, making void restraints unenforceable regardless of where signed and giving employees a private right of action with attorney’s fees.7Latham & Watkins. Important Changes to California Non-Compete Laws to Take Effect in January Whether these reforms reach the specific kind of non-solicitation clause in Pivato’s contract has not been resolved by any published California appellate decision.
The Broker Protocol Angle
Neither Allworth nor Creative Planning belongs to the Broker Protocol, the voluntary industry agreement that lets departing advisors take limited client contact information with them. Without Protocol membership, an advisor’s ability to bring clients to a new firm depends entirely on the employment contract and how a court or arbitrator reads trade-secret law. Industry observers note that non-Protocol firms frequently sue departing advisors and rely on forensic review of email and cloud-storage activity to build misappropriation cases, with temporary restraining orders as a common opening move.1RIAbiz. California Judge Is Siding With $210-Billion Kansas RIA Over $16-Billion California RIA in Poaching Case The Allworth-Pivato case followed that template, and, denied its emergency injunction and pushed into arbitration, it ended without a public verdict on either side.