Spread Your Wings, LLC v. Tran

Plaintiff shall give notice. 12 Spread Your Before the Court is a demurrer filed by defendants Kristy Rodriguez Wings, LLC v. (Kristy), Monica Rodriguez (Monica) and Diana Hsueh (Hsueh), Tran Yvonne Padron (Padron) and Ascend Services, Inc. (Ascend)(collectively, Defendants) to the Fourth Amended Complaint (4AC) filed by plaintiffs Spread Your Wings, LLC and Andrew Dumbuya (Plaintiffs). For the reasons set forth below, as to Ascend, the demurrer is OVERRULED as to the 5th and 14th causes of action and SUSTAINED as to the 9th-13th causes of action without leave to amend. As to Kristy, Monica and Hsueh, the demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. As to Pardon, the demurrer is SUSTAINED with 20 days’ leave to amend. Plaintiffs request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (Evid. Code § 452, subd. (d).)

Ascend: The California Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Civil Code section 3426 et. seq. (CUTSA) preempts common law claims for misappropriation of trade secrets. (K.C. Multimedia, Inc. v. Bank of America Tech. & Operations, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 939, 954.) Common law claims and statutory unfair competition claims that are “based on the same nucleus of facts as the misappropriation of trade secrets claim for relief” are also preempted by CUTSA. (Id. at 958, 961-962.) CUTSA does not preempt other California statutes regulating trade secrets; nor does it affect “contractual remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret” or “other civil remedies that are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret. (Civ.

Code § 3426.7; Angelica Textile Services, Inc. v. Park (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 495, 507.) The Court finds that the 9th-13th causes of action are based on the same nucleus of facts as the 4th cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets claim under CUTSA, but the 5th and 14th cases of action are not. (See 4AC ¶¶ 78, 69-76, 78-81, 86-113, 116.)

The Court also rejects Defendants’ argument the 5th cause of action for violation of Penal Code section 496 does not apply to receipt of stolen trade secrets. (People v. Gopal (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 524, 541 [“Anything that can be the subject of theft can also be property under section 496” including a trade secret]’; see also Civ. Code § 3426.1, subd. (a) [acquisition of a trade secret by “[i]mproper means includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation . . . through electronic or other means”]; 4AC ¶¶ 1, 78.)

The demurrer is thus SUSTAINED as to the 9th-13th causes of action without leave to amend and OVERRULED as to the 5th and 14th causes of action.

Kristy, Monica and Hsueh: Plaintiffs failed to cure the defect in the prior pleading. The 4AC does not add any new material and/or specific facts against Kristy, Monica and Hsueh. In the 4AC, Plaintiffs now allege they “intentionally and/or negligently interfered with SYW’s existing contractual relations and SYW’s prospective economic relations” but without identifying any specific conduct by Monica and Hsueh. The additional facts alleged against Kristy (4AC ¶ 40) are

insufficient to support the interference claims against her. Plaintiffs fail to allege a valid contract with a third party with which Kristy interfered or an existing relationship that is likely to produce economic benefits in the future. (Quelamine Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 55; Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1134, 1164.) An allegation about interference with unnamed “clients within SYW’s pipeline, about 10-20 clients starting services” is insufficient. (Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., supra, 29 Cal.4th at 1164 [the tort does not protect the expectation “that a potentially beneficial relationship will arise”].) Furthermore, as discussed above, CUTSA preempts the 9th through 13th causes of action. The demurrer is thus SUSTAINED without leave to amend as to these defendants.

Padron: The only facts alleged against Padron in the 4AC is that she was “retained as a consultant” by Tran, Garcia and Ascend to “convert, plagiarize, duplicate, repackage” SYW’s trade secrets and confidential information. Notably, misappropriation requires acquisition or use of a trade secret by a person knows or has reason to know the trade secret was acquired by improper means, and receipt of stolen property requires knowledge that the property was stolen. (Civ. Code § 3426.1, subd. (b), Pen. Code § 496.) There are no facts showing Padron’s knowledge or constructive knowledge that the information she purportedly converted was SYW’s trade secrets and that they were stolen and/or acquired by improper means. Furthermore, as discussed above, CUTSA preempts the 9th through 13th causes of action. The demurrer is thus SUSTAINED with 20 days’ leave to amend as to Padron.

Counsel for Defendants shall give notice of this ruling. 13 Bui v. Elliot Cont. to 9/26 14 Bui v. Elliot Cont. to 9/26 15 Trejo v. Trejo O/C 16 Twining vs. Defendant Gina Clayton Tarvin’s (“Defendant”) Motion for Attorney Tarvin Fees and Costs (“Motion”) is GRANTED.

Defendant was the prevailing party on an anti-SLAPP motion filed against plaintiff Edward "Butch" Twining’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint, and judgment in favor of Defendant was entered thereafter. (ROA 92, 93.) The prevailing party on an anti-SLAPP motion is entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees incurred on the motion. (Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16; Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal. 4th 1122, 1131.) Defendant is only permitted to recover fees and costs incurred in bringing the anti-SLAPP motion and the present motion for attorney fees, and not all of the fees incurred throughout an entire lawsuit. (Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chron. Publ'g Co. (1995) 39 Cal. App. 4th 1379, 1383.)

Multipliers are permitted in attorney fee awards on anti-SLAPP motions. (Ketchum, supra, 24 Cal. 4th at 1136.) There are multiple factors the court may consider when determining whether a multiple should apply. (Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal. 3d 25, 49.)