SASCO

SASCO v. Rosendin Electric, Inc.

Good Law
143 Cal. Rptr. 3d 828·2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 797·207 Cal. App. 4th 837·2012 WL 2826955
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 11, 2012No. G045229California4,175 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Ikola, J.

Plaintiff SASCO appeals a postjudgment order awarding defendants 1 $484,943.46 in attorney fees and costs pursuant to Civil Code section 3426.4 (section 3426.4). We affirm. The trial court applied the correct interpretation of section 3426.4 and did not abuse its discretion in finding “bad faith” on the part of SASCO in bringing its trade secret misappropriation claim against defendants.

FACTS

Allegations in Complaint

SASCO filed its complaint on July 31, 2008. We briefly describe the factual allegations contained therein, specifying where SASCO made allegations based upon information and belief.

SASCO and defendant Rosendin are licensed electrical contractors doing business in the State of California. Individual defendants Fitzsimmons, Thompson, and Woodworth worked for SASCO in senior management positions until the fall of 2006. Individual defendants each signed nondisclosure agreements with SASCO. Each of the individual defendants resigned from SASCO and joined Rosendin on different dates in October and November 2006.

Woodworth was aware of an opportunity being pursued by SASCO known as the Verizon Tustin Project. Woodworth “supported the effort by SASCO to pursue…

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.