Tiger Loans v. Hao CA4/3

Filed 2/9/21 Tiger Loans v. Hao CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

TIGER LOANS, INC.,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G058954

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2017-00921046)

YAN HAO, OPINION

Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Ronald L. Bauer, Judge. Dismissed. Law Office of Foroozandeh and Majid Foroozandeh for Plaintiff and Appellant. SAC Attorneys and Brian A. Barnhorst for Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiff Tiger Loans, Inc. appeals from an amended judgment including an award of attorney fees and costs against plaintiff and in favor of defendant Yan Hao. Plaintiff complains defendant was not entitled to fees and costs. But plaintiff’s appeal from the amended judgment is untimely because the amendment only added attorney fees and costs and the time for appeal of the original judgment expired. And even if we construe plaintiff’s appeal as having been taken from the underlying attorney fee order, it too is untimely. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal. FACTS Plaintiff, a mortgage broker, employed defendant as a financial analyst. As part of this relationship, plaintiff sponsored defendant for an H1-B visa, and withdrew the costs of the visa from defendant’s paycheck. Defendant started a separate lending business while defendant was still employed by plaintiff. Plaintiff apparently discovered the existence of this business, fired defendant, and sued her for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of duty of loyalty, unfair competition, and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. In response, defendant cross-complained against plaintiff and its principals, alleging various wage-and-hour and employment claims, including unpaid wages and failure to pay overtime due to misclassification as an exempt employee. The matter was tried before Judge Geoffrey T. Glass. Judge Glass found plaintiff largely failed to prove its claims, by failing to prove defendant engaged in certain alleged wrongful conduct, failing to prove it owned any protectable trade secrets, and failing to demonstrate any damages, as the new company formed by defendant never made any money. The trial court did find defendant had attempted to compete with plaintiff while still employed by plaintiff, violating her duty of loyalty. The only damages, though, were $32.80, representing the cost to obtain two credit reports using plaintiff’s account with a third party vendor.