Cases: Trade Secrets

Allocation, Trade Secrets: $299,647.50 Fee Award Against Plaintiff For Bringing A Frivolous Trade Secret Misappropriate Case Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Trade Secrets

Lower Court Did Reduce The Fee Request About $121,000 In Fashioning Its Award.             We have a category “Trade Secrets” describing some fairly hefty fee “sanctions” awards under Civil Code section 3426.4, part of the California’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act.  To this list can be added the award in SASCO v. CSI Electrical Contractors, Inc.,

Trade Secrets: Law Firm Loosing Trade Secret Case Against Former Employee, A Transactional Attorney, Properly Assessed With Costs Of $51,477.44 And $714,382.50 In Fees Under Civil Code Section 3426.4

Cases: Trade Secrets

Appellate Court Rejected That A Frivolousness, Rather Objectively Specious, Standard Governed.             Civil Code section 3426.4 is the fee-shifting statute under California’s Uniform Trade Secret Act.  It allows a trial court to discretionarily award reasonable fees and costs to a prevailing defendant where a misappropriation claim “is made in bad faith,” which under interpretive case

Appealability, Trade Secrets: Denial Of Attorney’s Fees Under Trade Secret Statute, Before Resolution Of Entire Case, Was Not Appealable For Now

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Trade Secrets

Order Dismissing Appeal Was Recently Published.             In Dr. V Productions, Inc. v. Rey, Case No. B312605 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 10, 2021) (published), the appellate court confronted whether the denial of a $273,484.56 attorney’s fees request under the trade secret fee-shifting statute (Civil Code section 3426.4) was appealable where the trade secret claim

Retainer Agreements, Trade Secrets: In The Absence Of An Express Retainer Agreement Otherwise, Fees Earned Under Uniform Trade Secrets Act Belong To The Attorney, Not The Client

Cases: Retainer Agreements, Cases: Trade Secrets

Third District Applied Analogous Reasoning From Flannery Decision.             Many times, “ownership” of an attorney’s fees award can be critical—does it belong to the attorney or the client, especially after disputes fester?  The Third District in Aerotek, Inc. v. Johnson Group Staffing Co., Inc., Case No. C078435 (3d Dist. Sept. 15, 2020) (published) decided where

Trade Secrets: Trial Court’s Award Of $65,000 Out Of A Requested $198,380 Affirmed Under Civil Code Section 3426.4, CUTSA’s Fee-Shifting Provision

Cases: Trade Secrets

Both Objective And Subjective Bad Faith Prongs Supported By Substantial Evidence.             The substantial evidence/abuse-of-discretion standards generally are hard to surmount.  No the less so in Jafari v. Gastelum, Case No. B293034 (2d Dist., Div. 7 July 21, 2020) (unpublished).             What happened here is that defendant prevailed in an action for breach of contract/trade

Trade Secrets: No Abuse Of Discretion In Trial Court’s Denial Of Prevailing Defendants’ Attorneys’ Fees Request

Cases: Trade Secrets

Plaintiff Was Victorious In Its Other Claims And Trial Court Was Allowed To Consider Equitable Concerns – Such As Attorneys’ Fees Plaintiff Incurred To Preserve Its Business Against Defendants’ “Unscrupulous Behavior.”             In Techno Lite, Inc. v. Emcod, LLC, Case Nos. B284989 and B289486 (2d Dist., Div. 4 January 21, 2020) (partially published), two

Trade Secrets: $1.1 Million Fee Award Against Two Defendants And Another $100,000 Against A Third Defendant Affirmed Under Trade Secrets Fee Shifting Statute, Civil Code § 3426.4

Cases: Trade Secrets

Even Though Third Defendant Only Found Liable For $2,287, $100,000 Fee Award Proper Because He Was A Chief Actor In Trade Secret Bad Faith Misappropriation.             In Applied General Agency, Inc. v. Greenleaf Financial and Ins. Services, Inc., Case No. G055737 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 17, 2019) (unpublished), plaintiff won a trade secrets misappropriation

Trade Secrets: Equities Determine Whether A Prevailing Plaintiff Obtains Fee Recovery Under CUTSA’s Fee-Shifting Provision

Cases: Trade Secrets

Civil Code Section 3426.4 Allows A Prevailing Plaintiff Recovery For Willful And Malicious Misappropriation.             In trade secrets cases, Civil Code section 3426.4 allows for a discretionary court award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party “[i]f a claim of misappropriation is made in bad faith, a motion to terminate an injunction

Trade Secrets: Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Sotelo Awards Prevailing Individual Defendant $168,924.96 In Attorney’s Fees And $29,560.28 In Costs In Trade Secret Misappropriation Case

Cases: Trade Secrets

Fee Claimant Did Something Good—Apportioned Fees Upfront From A Common Defense So That The Fee Request Was Not Inflated And Was Reasonable In Nature.             We congratulate attorneys Eric Bjorgum and Vincent Pollmeier, who apparently follow our blog, for a nice attorney’s fees/costs proceeding win in a trade secrets misappropriation case which was presided over

Section 998, Trade Secrets: 4/3 DCA Reverses Trial Judge’s Significant Taxing Of Costs-Shifting Under Rejected CCP § 998 Offer And Reverses Denial Of Fees Under Penal Code Section 502 Fee-Shifting Provision

Cases: Section 998, Cases: Trade Secrets

Remand Was Order, But A Potential $575,000 To $994,000 In Expert And Attorney’s Fees Must Be Considered In “Re Do.”             Prince v. Invensure Ins. Brokers, Inc., Case Nos. G051996 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 18, 2018) (partially published; section 998 discussion published, with remaining fee discussion unpublished) is an insurance business merger

Scroll to Top