Theodore Ins. Agency v. Morady

Filed 8/1/06 Theodore Ins. Agency v. Morady CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

APPEALS from a judgment and from a post-judgment order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Allan Goodman, Judge. Judgment Affirmed. Order Reversed.

Law Office of Daniel J. Spielfogel and Daniel J. Spielfogel for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Perlman Law and Deborah Perlman for Defendants and Respondents.

______________________________________________

In these consolidated appeals, the plaintiff Theodore Insurance Agency, Inc. (plaintiff) appeals (1) from a summary judgment in favor of defendants American Pacific General Agency, Inc. dba Marody Insurance Brokerage (American Pacific), Paul Marody, individually and dba Marody Insurance Brokerage, and Mavash Marody, individually and dba Marody Insurance Brokerage (collectively, respondents)[1] and (2) from a post-judgment order awarding attorney's fees to respondents.

The trial court found that the evidence presented by respondents and plaintiff in connection with respondents' motion for summary relief raised no triable issue of material fact regarding plaintiff's allegation that respondents had a part in, and benefited from, an alleged solicitation of clients, away from plaintiff, by a former employee of plaintiff, Shane Rettberg.

Plaintiff contends that the trial court failed to recognize triable issues of material fact concerning (1) whether Shane Rettberg merely announced to certain of plaintiff's clients that he would be leaving plaintiff's employ and going to work for respondents, or whether he solicited those clients, and (2) whether respondents knew or should have known that (a) Rettberg breached a fiduciary duty to plaintiff and (b) respondents were reaping the benefit of that breach and were engaging in unfair competition. Our review of the evidence presented by the parties convinces us it does not raise a triable issue of material fact on these matters. We therefore will affirm the summary judgment.

The post-judgment order awarding attorney's fees to respondents is based on statutory provisions permitting fee awards when a claim of misappropriation of trade secrets is made in bad faith. Here, the appellate record does not support the trial court's finding of bad faith and we will therefore reverse the fee award.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. Procedural Background

This case was filed on February 14, 2001. Named as a defendant was one Douglas Henderson, who was also a former employee of plaintiff. A first amended complaint (hereinafter â€