Filed 3/16/06 Synnex v.
Umax Technologies CA1/5
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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,
Plaintiff and
Appellant,
v.
UMAX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendant and Respondent.
A108678
(Alameda County
Super. Ct. No. 2002070094)
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
We vacate that part of the judgment awarding attorney fees and costs and
remand.
top:0pt'>[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€
| Description | Business litigation decision concerning an award of attorneys fees and costs. |
| Rating |
