CleanFish, LLC v. Sims

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 CLEANFISH, LLC, Case No. 19-cv-03663-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 82 10 DALE SIMS, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Pending before the Court is Defendant Island Sea Farm’s motion for attorneys’ fees and 14 costs. Dkt. No. 82. Defendant filed the motion after the Court dismissed without leave to amend 15 Plaintiff’s claims for violations of the Defense of Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1836, and the 16 California Uniform Trade Secrets Act, California Civil Code § 3426. See Dkt. No. 78.1 17 Under 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3), “[i]n a civil action brought under this subsection with 18 respect to the misappropriation of a trade secret, a court may…[i]f a claim of the misappropriation 19 is made in bad faith…award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party.” Similarly, under 20 California Civil Code § 3426.4, “[i]f a claim of misappropriation is made in bad faith…the court 21 may award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party.” “California courts have 22 held that bad faith ‘requires objective speciousness of the plaintiff’s claim, as opposed to 23 frivolousness, and its subjective bad faith in bringing or maintaining the claim.’” Direct Techs., 24 LLC v. Elec. Arts, Inc., 836 F.3d 1059, 1071 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Gemini Aluminum Corp. v. 25 Cal. Custom Shapes, Inc., 95 Cal.App.4th 1249, 116 Cal.Rptr.2d 358, 368 (2002)). Trial courts 26

27 1 The Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without oral argument and the matter is 1 have broad discretion in ruling on fees motions. See Gemini, 95 Cal. App. 4th at 1262; M.A. 2 Mobile Ltd. v. Indian Inst. of Tech. Kharagpur, No. 3:08-CV-02658-WHO, 2019 WL 6525752, at 3 *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2019) 4 Defendant argues that Plaintiffs claims were specious, and that Plaintiff was aware from 5 the outset that its claims lacked a factual and legal basis. Dkt. No. 82-1 1:14-15. The facts that 6 Defendant relies on in its motion show weaknesses in Plaintiff's case, but those weaknesses do not 7 establish objective speciousness. Although the Court found that Plaintiff failed to satisfy pleading 8 requirements, the Court’s motion to dismiss order also does not establish speciousness. Nor is 9 there evidence to support a finding of subjective bad faith. Defendant contends that the Court 10 should infer bad faith because Plaintiff was unable to adequately plead a misappropriation claim 11 and Defendant repeatedly advised Plaintiff of the shortcomings of its claims. Jd. 11:3-5. But 12 Plaintiff's decision to pursue its claims despite Defendant’s insistence that the claims lacked merit 5 13 does not establish subjective bad faith. 14 Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. 3 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. a 16 || Dated: 12/15/2020 Abbeuprerd 5. beh. 8 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28