S.O.Tech/Special Ops. Technologies v. Berge CA2/7

DISCUSSION

The sole issue presented by this appeal is the trial court’s denial of an award of attorney’s fees. The court determined that, although the question of attorney’s fees was not before the jury, the jury’s determination on punitive damages bound the court, and that it had no discretion to award attorney’s fees. Because we conclude that the jury’s finding on the different issue did not bind the court, we will remand for the court to reconsider the motion.

Standard of Review “‘On review of an award of attorney fees after trial, the normal standard of review is abuse of discretion. However, de novo review of such a trial court order is warranted where the determination of whether the criteria for an award of attorney fees and costs in this context have been satisfied amounts to statutory construction and a question of law.’” (Connerly v. State Personnel Bd. (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1169, 1175, quoting Carver v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 132, 142.) Thus, we exercise independent review on the narrow question of whether S.O. Tech is entitled to seek fees under Civil Code section 3426.4.

California Uniform Trade Secrets Act S.O. Tech’s claims for misappropriation…