A: Generally speaking non-competes are not enforceable in California against employees or independent contractors. The situation may be different depending on all the facts if you were an equity owner or partner in the company. Also, when a business is sold, a reasonable non-compete is enforceable against the former owner(s) since they were paid as part of the purchase price for non-competition representations. California has long had a public policy against non-compete clauses against employees and independent contractors since it affects their ability to earn a living. I am not sure what information you have about them "coming after other employees". Note: I don't have all the facts, and this answer is for informational and research purposes only.
A: Whether or not you can provide services to a client company that you were assigned to by a manpower supplier company would depend on a few factors.
1. What state law applies as stated in the written agreement, which I assume is an independent contractor agreement?
2. What that state law establishes regarding the enforcement of non-compete agreements Business laws very from state to state regarding enforcement of agreements with employees and independent contracts; states don't like to restrict workers unless the restrictions are relevant and related to a defined and reasonable business purpose.
3. You may also be subject to state law based on where you live and where you are providing the services, regardless of what the written agreement states.
4. Non-solicitation language must be reviewed. Does your written agreement state that you cannot solicit them and does this company also have a non-solicit that they will not solicit you? You have to look at it both ways.
5. The exact language of the contract you signed will be very important, especially in how they defined the work you have been performing for that CLient you want to work for.
A: Since Section 9, Non-Disparagement, is not listed as one of the sections that "survives termination of this Agreement" it is arguable that once the Agreement terminates pursuant to the termination clause of the Agreement then the Non-Disparagement restriction will terminate as well. If no term is stated in a written agreement then presumably the restriction on disparaging that the parties agree to is not terminated, since the contract did not specify one, and therefore is a continuing obligation of both parties. Damages is another issue though. If the contract does not specify damages if one party breaches the agreement by disparaging the other, then what are the damages? Courts hate to guess at damages so the non-breaching party would have to prove "actual damages". If the non-breaching party cannot prove a loss of business or a lost contract with a client as a "direct result" of the disparaging comment, then the court will not guess at damages so the most the non-breaching party may hope to gain is an injunction against future disparaging comments and an order that such comments be removed from the internet, if that is where the comments appear.