Commline

Khavarian Enterprises, Inc. v. Commline, Inc.

Good Law
156 Cal. Rptr. 3d 657·2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 377·216 Cal. App. 4th 310·2013 WL 1962380
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 14, 2013B243467California867 words

Opinion

Opinion

Suzukawa, J.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Khavarian Enterprises, Inc., doing business as Vision Communications Co. (Vision), appeals from orders denying its motion for attorney fees and costs and granting the motion to strike its cost memorandum in favor of defendants Commline, Inc., Jeffrey Fukusawa, James Timjun, and Theresa Camden (Commline or the Commline defendants). Vision contends the trial court erred in finding that it could not properly decide either motion because the matter was resolved by settlement agreement prior to trial. Because we conclude that parties to a settlement agreement can validly specify that one party is potentially a prevailing party and reserve for later determination by the trial court whether that party did prevail, as well as other factual matters involved in mating an award of statutory attorney fees, we reverse the trial court’s orders and remand the matter to the trial court to consider the motions.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In August 2010, Vision filed an action for trade secret misappropriation, seeking damages, restitution, and injunctive relief. Respondents filed a timely answer. Defendant Fukusawa filed a cross-complaint against Vision…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.