S.O.Tech/Special Ops. Technologies v. Berge CA2/7

Filed 10/9/13 S.O.Tech/Special Ops. Technologies v. Berge CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

S.O. TECH/SPECIAL OPERATIONS B243795 TECHNOLOGIES, INC., (Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Appellant, Super. Ct. No. BC437331)

v.

MICHAEL BERGE et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Kenneth R. Freeman, Judge. Reversed. Lurie, Zepeda, Schmalz & Hogan, Troy L. Martin and M. Damien Holcomb for Plaintiff and Appellant. Law Office of Matthew K. Davis and Matthew K. Davis for Defendants and Respondents.

__________________________

In this action under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act, appellant S.O. Tech/Special Operations Technologies, Inc. challenges the denial of its attorney’s fees. Because we conclude that the trial court erred in concluding that the jury’s failure to find a basis for awarding punitive damages precluded an award of attorney’s fees under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

FACTURAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

S.O. Tech/Special Operations Technologies, Inc. (S.O. Tech.) sued Michael Berge, doing business as Berge Innovations, Berge Innovations, Inc., Action Bag and Cover, Inc., and Does 1-25 on May 7, 2010, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition, interference with prospective economic advantage, and breach of contract; the complaint also request an accounting. Berge and Berge Innovations, Inc., respondents here, answered the complaint on June 7, 2010. The matter was tried to the jury and, on October 6, 2011, the jury returned its verdict, finding a misappropriation of trade secrets, and awarding S.O. Tech damages in the sum of $29,036. The jury also found that S.O. Tech had failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the respondents acted willfully and maliciously in the misappropriation. Finally, the jury found that Berge had breached his contract, and awarded S.O. Tech damages of $29,820 for that breach. Following the verdict, the trial court took further evidence and heard arguments of counsel on S.O. Tech’s demand for a permanent injunction. On January 17, 2012, the court found good cause to impose that injunction. The trial court entered judgment in the matter on April 27, 2012, severing the cause of action for interference with prospective economic advantage for a separate trial, and reserving jurisdiction over the claim for attorney’s fees and costs. S.O. Tech moved for attorney’s fees under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Civ. Code, § 3426.4) on May 29, 2012. The motion asserted a right to fees based on the jury’s finding of misappropriation, and evidence demonstrating that misappropriation had been willful and malicious. Respondents opposed the motion, asserting that the