Dr. V. Productions, Inc. v. Rey

Filed 9/8/21 Certified for Publication 9/10/21 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

B312605 DR. V PRODUCTIONS, INC., (Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 20STCV23176) v. ORDER DISMISSING SAMANTHA REY, APPEAL

Defendant and Appellant.

BY THE COURT:

Plaintiff and respondent Dr. V. Productions, Inc. moves to dismiss defendant and appellant Samantha Rey’s appeal from an order denying appellant’s motion for $273,484.56 in attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 3426.4 (section 3426.4). That statute provides for attorney’s fees for the bad faith prosecution of a trade secret misappropriation claim. Respondent argues the order is not separately appealable. We agree. I. The underlying litigation, filed in 2020, stems from a former employment relationship between appellant and

respondent. Respondent is an entertainment production company, and appellant held various positions with the company. After appellant was terminated, respondent brought suit against her and related parties. Generally speaking, the complaint alleged that, after appellant’s termination, she converted and destroyed documents that belonged to respondent. According to the complaint, the files in question “included the vast majority of Respondent’s proprietary company information.” The current lawsuit is the third among the parties. In the present action, after significant discovery, respondent voluntarily dismissed its misappropriation of trade secrets cause of action. That left remaining claims for breach of fiduciary duty, “abuse of control,” gross mismanagement, corporate waste, conversion, and extortion. Those claims are still outstanding. Following the dismissal of the trade secrets cause of action, appellant moved for an award of attorney fees under section 3426.4. On March 10, 2021, the trial court denied the motion. Appellant appealed, and respondent moved to dismiss the appeal.1

1 On the same date, the court ruled on various other matters. The current appeal involves only the denial of attorney fees.

2

II. Section 3426.4 provides: “If a claim of misappropriation is made in bad faith, a motion to terminate an injunction is made or resisted in bad faith, or willful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party. Recoverable costs hereunder shall include a reasonable sum to cover the services of expert witnesses, who are not regular employees of any party, actually incurred and reasonably necessary in either, or both, preparation for trial or arbitration, or during trial or arbitration, of the case by the prevailing party.” In enacting the statute, “the Legislature was concerned with curbing ‘specious’ actions for misappropriation of trade secrets, and such actions may superficially appear to have merit.” (Gemini Aluminum Corp. v. California Custom Shapes, Inc. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1249, 1262.) An award of reasonable attorney’s fees may act “ ‘as a deterrent to specious claims of misappropriation. . . .’ M. Jager, Trade Secrets Law, APP.A1 at 13 (1988) (emphasis added).” (Stilwell Development Inc. v. Chen (C.D. Cal., Apr. 25, 1989, No. CV86-4487-GHK) 1989 WL 418783, at