This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/10/2019 at 18:08:50 (UTC).

SPIKES INC VS JOHN YOON ET AL

Case Summary

On 01/26/2017 SPIKES INC filed a Contract - Business lawsuit against JOHN YOON. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8189

  • Filing Date:

    01/26/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Business

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

SPIKES INC

SPIKES INC. DBA HOLLYWOOD BODY JEWELRY

Defendants and Respondents

CRAVE BODY JEWELRY

YOON JOHN

JK TRADING INC

DOES 1 TO 25

JK TRADING INC. DBA CRAVE BODY JEWELRY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

BOYD KARIE J.

GEORGIANNA THOMAS D.

BOYD KARIE J

Defendant Attorneys

OH JOHN H.

KESHISHIAN MILORD A.

 

Court Documents

DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET NUMBER ONE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF JOHN OH IN SUPPORT

9/13/2018: DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET NUMBER ONE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF JOHN OH IN SUPPORT

Order

10/18/2018: Order

Response

2/15/2019: Response

Proof of Service by Mail

2/20/2019: Proof of Service by Mail

Declaration in Support of Ex Parte Application

3/12/2019: Declaration in Support of Ex Parte Application

Opposition

3/13/2019: Opposition

Declaration

3/27/2019: Declaration

Statement of the Case

4/3/2019: Statement of the Case

Jury Instructions

4/4/2019: Jury Instructions

Notice of Lodging

5/6/2019: Notice of Lodging

Minute Order

6/21/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

7/22/2019: Minute Order

DECLARATION OF DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL, JOHN OH, RE: REDLINE VERSION OF PROPOSED ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

5/24/2018: DECLARATION OF DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL, JOHN OH, RE: REDLINE VERSION OF PROPOSED ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

DEFENDANT JK TRADING, INC.'S NOTICE OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (SET ONE); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

6/28/2017: DEFENDANT JK TRADING, INC.'S NOTICE OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (SET ONE); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER LIMITING DISSEMINATION OF TRADE SECRETS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS IN THIS ACTION AND THEIR ATTORNEYS

8/4/2017: PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER LIMITING DISSEMINATION OF TRADE SECRETS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS IN THIS ACTION AND THEIR ATTORNEYS

JOINT STATUS REPORT RE: STIPULATED PROTECTIVK ORDFR

8/31/2017: JOINT STATUS REPORT RE: STIPULATED PROTECTIVK ORDFR

DECLARATION OF MILORD A. KESHISHIAN IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE THE HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL; ETC.

11/2/2017: DECLARATION OF MILORD A. KESHISHIAN IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE THE HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL; ETC.

Minute Order

11/2/2017: Minute Order

192 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/22/2020
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 37 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2019
  • DocketMotion for Attorney Fees (and Expert Witness Fees); Filed by Spikes, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2019
  • DocketMemorandum of Points & Authorities; Filed by Spikes, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2019
  • DocketDeclaration (of Thomas D. Georgianna); Filed by Spikes, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2019
  • DocketMemorandum of Costs (Summary); Filed by John Yoon (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2019
  • DocketMemorandum of Costs (Summary); Filed by Spikes, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/22/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 37; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/22/2019
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((In Chambers Court Order Regarding Notice of Entry of Judgment) of 07/22/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/22/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (In Chambers Court Order Regarding Notice of Entry of Judgment)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2019
  • DocketNotice of Entry of Judgment / Dismissal / Other Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
334 More Docket Entries
  • 03/08/2017
  • DocketOSC-RE Other (Miscellaneous); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2017
  • DocketORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Spikes, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/26/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/26/2017
  • DocketPLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR: 1. MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS; AND 2. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/26/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Spikes, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC648189    Hearing Date: January 21, 2020    Dept: 37

HEARING DATE: January 22, 2020

CASE NUMBER: BC648189

CASE NAME: Spikes Inc. v. John Yoon, et al.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Spikes Inc.

OPPOSING PARTY: Defendants, John Yoon and JK Trading, Inc.

TRIAL DATE: None – Judgment Entered July 19, 2019

PROOF OF SERVICE: OK

PROCEEDING: Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees

OPPOSITION: December 20, 2019

REPLY: January 14, 2020

TENTATIVE: Plaintiff has not sustained its burden of proving and entitlement to fees, so the motion is DENIED. Plaintiff to give notice.

Background

This is a complaint for misappropriation of trade secret and injunctive relief arising out of Plaintiff, Spikes, Inc., doing business as Hollywood Body Jewelry (“HBJ”) wholesale jewelry business. HBJ alleges that it only sells product from its website to merchants for placement in retail stores, and that information regarding HBJ’s clients is kept confidential on their server, on which information is kept confidential through various security measures HBJ undertakes. HBJ further alleges that it requires its employees to never disclose confidential information, which expressly includes HBJ’s customer lists.

Despite these measures, HBJ alleges that Defendants JK Trading, Inc., doing business as Crave Body Jewelry (“Crave”) and John Yoon (“Yoon”) caused their customers to begin receiving emails from Crave, despite never having interfaced with Crave, Yoon, or their business. HBJ further alleges that it discovered Crave and Yoon’s misappropriation beginning approximately September 2016 when it began discovering decoy customers on its own client list as well as a decline in sales. Further, HBJ alleges that although it notified Crave and Yoon of their conduct and demanded that they cease and desist, Crave and Yoon did not do so and continued to solicit customers of HBJ. The Complaint alleges that these customers could only have been known if the Email List was misappropriated, as HBJ alleged went to extensive security measures to keep the customer list secret.

HBJ’s operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) alleges two causes of action for: (1) misappropriation of trade secrets under California Civil Code section 3426.1, and (2) injunctive relief.

On May 17, 2018, the court issued a preliminary injunction in this matter in favor of HBJ.

Thereafter, the matter proceeded to trial. On July 19, 2019, a judgment was entered in this matter, which reflects that the verdict reached by the jury following trial that concluded on April 26, 2019 was as follows:

  1. HBJ was the owner of an email list of clients (“Email List”);

  2. The Email List was secret at the time of the alleged misappropriation;

  3. The email list had actual or potential independent economic value because it was secret;

  4. HBJ made reasonable efforts to keep the Email List secret;

  5. Yoon did NOT acquire or use the Email List by improper means;

  6. Crave DID acquire or use the Email List by improper means;

  7. Crave’s acquisition or use of the Email List was a substantial factor in causing HBJ harm or Crave to be unjustly enriched;

  8. HBJ’s damages are as follows: $175,000 for past economic loss.

On June 21, 2019, following the conclusion of jury trial, the court ordered the preliminary injunction of June 28, 2018 dissolved. Crave and Yoon (“Defendants”) were ordered to destroy the Email List and to “instruct mail chimp to desist use [of] any emailing list provided to mail chimp by the defendant prior to May 17, 2019.” Further, Defendants were not to disseminate the information on the Email List in any manner were ordered to provide a declaration within 15 days indicating that they had complied with this order.

On August 2, 2019, HBJ filed the instant motion for attorney fees. Defendants oppose the motion.

Motion for Attorney’s Fees

I. Legal Standard

HBJ requests attorney fees under Civil Code section 3426.4, which provides as follows:

“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.”

As a preliminary note, Defendants’ opposition to HBJ’s motion consists only of the general argument that Civil Code section 3426.4 requires that the jury find Defendants to have misappropriate the trade secret(s) in question willfully and/or maliciously. (see generally, Opposition.) Defendants also contend that the jury found in favor of Yoon, in that Yoon was not found to have acquired the Email List by inappropriate means. As such, Defendants contend that no amount of attorney fees is warranted under the meaning of this statute.

While the court does not disagree that the jury found in favor of Yoon, the court finds that Defendants’ arguments about the meaning of the statute misplaced. Defendants have not cited the court to any authority, and the court is aware of none, which stands for the proposition that an award of attorney fees under this section requires a jury finding that Defendants misappropriated the trade secrets willfully or maliciously. Instead, the statutes simply states that “willful and malicious misappropriation exists” is a basis for the court to award reasonable attorney fees. However, if the jury did not find willful and malicious misappropriation, the court must do so for an award of fees.

II. Analysis

A. Willful and Malicious Misappropriation

HBJ contends that Defendant Crave willfully and maliciously misappropriated its Email List for the purposes of Civil Code section 3426.4. Defendants’ opposition does not directly address this contention and, as discussed above, merely contends that the jury was required to make such a determination.

HBJ contends that on September 18, 2016, Crave’s sales manager, Jay Cha (“Cha”) asked his friend and HBJ employee Andrew Oh (“Oh”) for help developing a client email list. (Motion, 1.) Cha testified at trial that Oh sent him an email list, and that he assumed that the list had been taken from HBJ. (Appendix A-B (Cha Trial Transcript at pp. 18:22-19:14, 36:10.) Cha also testified that he thought it was proper to use the list because Oh was sharing it with him. (id.)

On October 25, 2016, HBJ sent Crave a letter demanding that it cease and desist in using HBJ’s Email List. On November 11, 2016, Yoon, on behalf of Crave, responded to the October 25, 2019 letter and stated that he was “looking into this matter.” (Trial Exhibits 11-12.)

Thereafter, Crave allegedly failed to actually look into the matter or otherwise cease and desist. According to Cha, Yoon showed Cha the cease and desist letter and told Cha “don’t worry about it.” (Appendix D (Cha Transcript) at p. 22:20.) Further, Yoon allegedly admitted at trial that he never took actions to actually investigate the matter. (Appendix E (Yoon Transcript) at p. 92:27.)

As of December 6, 2016, Crave was allegedly sending marketing emails to a customer list of over 62,000 customers. (Trial Exhibit 73.) HBJ contends that Crave’s emails sent to this large client list could only have occurred if it misappropriated the Email List from HBJ. (Motion, 3.) HBJ contends that this willful and malicious misappropriation continued for two and a half years thereafter, including during the entirety of this action.

For example, Jin Yan Li (“Li”), a longtime HBJ customer, testified to receiving emails from Crave despite never having registered with Crave. (Appendix M (Li Transcript at pp. 56:8-59:14.) Further, another customer, Christian Grau, testified that he received emails on October 26, 2017 from Crave despite never registering with Crave. (Appendix O (“Grau Transcript”) at pp. 30:8-21.) Finally, after the preliminary injunction was entered, Julie Jang, HBJ’s chief financial officer, allegedly received an email on January 29, 2019 after the court issued its preliminary injunction against Crave. (Appendix R (“Jang Transcript”) at pp.149:10-152:3.)

There also was credible testimony that Crave worked with Hollywood to compare email lists to eliminate entries that only came from Hollywood. There were a number of non-Hollywood names on Crave’s list. Also, Plaintiff did not have credible evidence of mass mailings continuing after December 2016.

The jury found that there had been misappropriation, but not every misappropriation is willful and malicious. Otherwise, there would be no need for that language in the statute. Given the foregoing, the court finds that Crave’s misappropriation of HBJ’s Email List, a trade secret, was not willful and malicious for purposes of Civil Code section 3426.4. There is insufficient evidence of malice.

B. Requested Hourly Rate

The hourly rate should reflect the local market for comparable representation. (Ketchum, supra, 24 Cal.4th at pp. 1128, 1138.) The reasonable hourly rate “is the product of a multiplicity of factors [including] the level of skill necessary, time limitations, the amount to be obtained in the litigation, the attorney’s representation, and the undesirability of the case.” (Id. at p. 1139, internal quotations omitted.) Where the record is bereft of evidence on the value of the attorney’s services, the court may rely on its own knowledge and experience to determine a reasonable fee. (Frank v. Frank (1963) 213 Cal.App.2d 135, 137 [“The knowledge and experience of the trial judge afford a sufficient basis for fixing the amount of a lawyer's fee, even though there was no specific evidence on the subject”]; accord, Dudman v. State of California (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 617, 619.) “The law is clear, however, that an award of attorney fees may be based on counsel’s declarations, without production of detailed time records. (Raining Data Corp. v. Barrenechea (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1363, 1375 (Raining Data).)

HBJ submits the declaration of its attorney, Thomas Georgianna (“Georgianna Decl.”) in connection with this motion. Georgianna attests that the rates for attorneys and staff in connection with this matter were as follows:

  1. $475 for Karie J. Boyd

  2. $375 for senior associates

  3. $325 for associates

  4. $195 for paralegals

  5. $150 for legal secretaries or legal support staff.

(see Georgianna Decl. ¶ 4.) Further, Georgianna attests that from May 7, 2019 to trial, HBJ’s attorneys charged $300 per hour for managing attorneys, $250 per hours for associates and $150 per hour for paralegals. (Georgianna Decl. ¶ 20.) Finally, HBJ also requests expert witness fees for expert Matthew Albee, whose rate Georgianna attests is $290 per hour generally and $390 per hour for expert testimony. (Georgianna Decl. ¶ 23.)

Georgianna attests that his own rate is $375 on this matter and that he has been attorney in New York since 2002, and in California since 2006, for a total of 13 years in California and 17 years overall. (Georgianna Decl. ¶ 19.) However, Georgianna does not attest to any facts substantiating the rates for associate attorneys or paralegals, nor does HBJ submit any declarations in support of those rates.

The court finds that all of these rates are reasonable for attorneys in the Los Angeles area with comparable experience.

C. Reasonableness of Requested Fees

“A trial court assessing attorney fees begins with a touchstone or lodestar figure, based on the ‘careful compilation of the time spent and reasonable hourly compensation of each attorney ... involved in the presentation of the case.” (Christian Research Inst. v. Alnor (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1321 (Christian).) The court “need not simply award the sum requested. To the contrary, ascertaining the fee amount is left to the trial court’s sound discretion.” (Ibid.) “The reasonableness of attorney fees is within the discretion of the trial court, to be determined from a consideration of such factors as the nature of the litigation, the complexity of the issues, the experience and expertise of counsel and the amount of time involved. The court may also consider whether the amount requested is based upon unnecessary or duplicative work.” (Wilkerson v. Sullivan (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 443, 448 (Wilkerson).) “The basis for the trial court’s calculation must be the actual hours counsel has devoted to the case, less those that result from inefficient or duplicative use of time.” (Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 395 (Horsford).) “The law is clear, however, that an award of attorney fees may be based on counsel’s declarations, without production of detailed time records. (Raining Data Corp. v. Barrenechea (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1363, 1375 (Raining Data).)

HBJ submits billing statements from its attorneys in support of a total request for fees in the amount of $357,258.40. HBJ has also submitted Georgianna Declaration to substantiate the amounts claimed. Based on the performance during trial and the trial preparation, the court considers the request reasonable, and would have approved the fee request if there were a legal entitlement to fees.

Conclusion

Plaintiff has not sustained its burden of proving and entitlement to fees, so the motion is DENIED. Plaintiff to give notice.