Filed: Oct. 02, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 02, 2014
Summary: AMENDED JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEVERLY REID O'CONNELL, District Judge. WHEREAS, on January 13, 2012, Plaintiff Contemporary Services Corporation ("CSC") filed its First Amended Complaint (Docket No. 74) against Defendants Landmark Event Staffing Services, Inc. ("Landmark"), Peter Kranske ("Kranske") and Michael Harrison ("Harrison") (collectively "Defendants"). WHEREAS, CSC's First Amended Complaint asserted claims for (1) misappropriation of trade secrets, (2) vi
Summary: AMENDED JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEVERLY REID O'CONNELL, District Judge. WHEREAS, on January 13, 2012, Plaintiff Contemporary Services Corporation ("CSC") filed its First Amended Complaint (Docket No. 74) against Defendants Landmark Event Staffing Services, Inc. ("Landmark"), Peter Kranske ("Kranske") and Michael Harrison ("Harrison") (collectively "Defendants"). WHEREAS, CSC's First Amended Complaint asserted claims for (1) misappropriation of trade secrets, (2) vio..
More
AMENDED JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
BEVERLY REID O'CONNELL, District Judge.
WHEREAS, on January 13, 2012, Plaintiff Contemporary Services Corporation ("CSC") filed its First Amended Complaint (Docket No. 74) against Defendants Landmark Event Staffing Services, Inc. ("Landmark"), Peter Kranske ("Kranske") and Michael Harrison ("Harrison") (collectively "Defendants").
WHEREAS, CSC's First Amended Complaint asserted claims for (1) misappropriation of trade secrets, (2) violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, (3) violation of the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, (4) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, (5) civil conspiracy, (6) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, (7) unjust enrichment, (8) aiding and abetting, and (9) breach of contract.
WHEREAS, on July 16, 2014, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, and alternatively for partial summary judgment (Docket No. 219), on all of CSC's claims in its First Amended Complaint.
WHEREAS, on August 14, 2014, CSC filed its opposition to Defendants' motion (Docket No. 251).
WHEREAS, on August 25, 2014, Defendants filed their reply in support of their motion (Docket No. 289).
WHEREAS, the Court heard oral argument by the parties on September 8, 2014.
WHEREAS, on September 9, 2014, the Court issued a minute order granting summary judgment in Defendants' favor on all of CSC's claims (Docket No. 350) (the "Summary Judgment Order").
WHEREAS, on September 15, 2014 the Court entered judgment in Defendants' favor (the "Original Judgment") (Docket No. 355.)
WHEREAS, on September 29, 2014, Defendants and CSC filed a stipulation in lieu of Defendants' motion for attorneys' fees and sanctions and application to tax costs and in which in which the parties stipulated as to the amount of Defendants' attorneys' fees and costs, both taxable and non-taxable, in the amount of eight hundred thousand dollars ($800,000.00) (the "Award").
WHEREAS, on September 30, 2014 this Court granted the parties' stipulation and ordered the Award (the "Order Awarding Fees and Costs") (Docket No. 359).
Pursuant to and in accordance with the Summary Judgment Order, and the Order Awarding Fees and Costs, and for all the reasons stated therein and on the record at the September 8, 2014 hearing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that this AMENDED JUDGMENT be entered as follows:
1. On CSC's first cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets, JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN DEFENDANTS' FAVOR.
2. On CSC's second cause of action for violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN DEFENDANTS' FAVOR.
3. On CSC's third cause of action for violation of the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN DEFENDANTS' FAVOR.
4. On CSC's fourth cause of action for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN DEFENDANTS' FAVOR.
5. On CSC's fifth cause of action for civil conspiracy, JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN DEFENDANTS' FAVOR.
6. On CSC's sixth cause of action for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN DEFENDANTS' FAVOR.
7. On CSC's seventh cause of action for unjust enrichment, JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN DEFENDANTS' FAVOR.
8. On CSC's eighth cause of action for aiding and abetting, JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN DEFENDANTS' FAVOR.
9. On CSC's ninth cause of action for breach of contract, JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN DEFENDANTS' FAVOR.
10. Defendants are awarded attorneys' fees and costs, both taxable and non-taxable, in the amount of eight hundred thousand dollars ($800,000.00).
11. This amended judgment supersedes and replaces the Original Judgment (Docket No. 355.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
