Synnex v. Umax Technologies

Filed 3/16/06 Synnex v. Umax Technologies CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

Synnex Corporation (Synnex) appeals from a judgment and an award of attorney fees and costs in favor of respondent Umax Technologies (Umax) in a breach of contract action. Synnex argues that the judgment incorrectly designates Umax as the prevailing party entitled to attorney fees and costs. We vacate that part of the judgment awarding attorney fees and costs and remand.^[1]

Factual Background

According to Synnex's complaint, a predecessor in interest to Synnex, Merisel Americas, Inc., entered into a distribution agreement with Umax. On October 25, 2002, Synnex filed a complaint against Umax for breach of that contract, alleging Umax had failed to issue proper credits to Synnex and sought damages of $90,719.40. On December 2, 2002, Umax filed a cross-complaint for breach of the same contract, alleging that Synnex had failed to pay the full value of the products received and sought damages of $150,192.57. The contract included an attorney fees clause which reads in pertinent part: â€