GARY A. FEESS, District Judge.
On April 22, 2014, the present lawsuit came on for a jury trial in this courtroom, Department 740, the Honorable Gary A. Feess, Judge Presiding. Shortly prior to the commencement of the trial, the Court re-classified DBA Distribution Services, Inc. ("DBA") and Radiant Logistics, Inc. ("Radiant") as the plaintiffs (collectively, "Plaintiffs") and Bretta Santini Pollara ("Santini"), Santini Productions and Oceanair, Inc. ("Oceanair") as the defendants (collectively, "Defendants"). Plaintiffs were represented at trial by David F. Faustman, Esq. and Jesse Koppin, Esq. of Fox Rothschild LLP. Santini and Santini Productions (collectively, "Santini Defendants") were represented at trial by Steven E. Burton, Esq. of Speciale & Burton, A.P.C. Oceanair was represented at trial by Richard Bickelman, Esq. of Posternak Blankstein & Lund LLP of Boston, Massachusetts and Arash Beral, Esq. of Freeman, Freeman & Smiley, LLP.
The claims tried to a jury were as follows:
1. DBA's claim for violations of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act against Defendants (Count I of the Second Amended Counterclaim);
2. Plaintiffs' claim for Interference with Contractual Relations against Oceanair (Count II of the Second Amended Counterclaim); and
3. Plaintiffs' claim for Inducement to Breach Contract against Oceanair (Count III of the Second Amended Counterclaim).
After Plaintiffs' presentation of their case-in-chief, the Court granted Oceanair's timely motion for judgment as a matter of law as to the Inducement to Breach Contract claim (Count III). As to the remaining two claims (Counts I and II), the jury found for DBA and against the Defendants on its violations of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act claim (Count I) and awarded damages, and found for Oceanair on the Interference with Contractual Relations claim (Count II). The parties filed post-trial motions, either renewing their motions for judgment as a matter of law or seeking a new trial. More specifically, Oceanair filed a Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Doc. No. 319), the Santini Defendants filed a Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Doc. No. 320), and Plaintiffs filed a Motion for New Trial and Reinstruction of Jury (Doc. No. 321). The post-trial motions came on for hearing in this Department on May 16, 2014 (the "Hearing").
Having considered all of the papers, evidence at trial, and arguments of counsel (as well as the arguments of counsel at the Hearing), the Court took these matters under submission and issued an Order re: Post-Trial Motions on June 6, 2014 denying Plaintiffs' Motion for New Trial and Reinstruction of Jury (Doc. No. 321), and granting Defendants' Renewed Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Doc. Nos. 320-321) as to the violations of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act claim (Count I) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b). Doc. No. 329.
Accordingly, and based on the foregoing,
1. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants Bretta Santini Pollara, Santini Productions, and Oceanair on all of the claims asserted in this lawsuit;
2. Plaintiffs DBA Distribution Services, Inc. and Radiant Logistics, Inc. shall recover nothing from Defendants Bretta Santini Pollara, Santini Productions, and Oceanair and the action shall be dismissed on the merits;
3. Defendants Bretta Santini Pollara, Santini Productions, and Oceanair are determined to be the prevailing parties, and shall recover from Plaintiffs DBA Distribution Services, Inc. and Radiant Logistics, Inc. their costs, pursuant to bills of costs to be duly submitted to the Court for adjudication;
4. Pursuant to the Order Court's adjudication of the bills of costs submitted by Defendants, Defendants Bretta Santini Pollara, Santini Productions, and Oceanair shall recover their costs from Plaintiffs DBA Distribution Services, Inc. and Radiant Logistics, Inc., jointly and severally, in the following amount(s):
As to Bretta Santini Pollara and Santini Productions: _____________________________
As to Oceanair: _________________________