Sealmaster Industries v. Watson

Filed 5/31/06 Sealmaster Industries v. Watson CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Rodney E. Nelson, Judge. Affirmed.

Henry J. Josefsberg for Cross-defendant and Appellant.

Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt, Linda Miller Savitt, and Christine T. Hoeffner for Cross-complainants and Respondents.

After a jury returned a verdict against appellant Mark Watson in his wrongful termination action against respondents Sealmaster Industries, Inc. (SI), Sealmaster Franchise Group, Inc. (SFG), and David Thorson, the trial court rendered a judgment in favor of respondents on their cross-claim for misappropriation of trade secrets, and issued a permanent injunction against Watson. Pursuant to the attorney fee provision in a confidentiality agreement executed by Watson, the trial court also issued a fee award to respondents. On appeal, Watson challenges only this award. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

Watson filed a complaint against respondents, asserting claims for fraud and misrepresentation, unpaid wages, conversion, unfair trade practices, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and tortious infliction of emotional distress. His complaint alleged that Thorson is the chief executive officer of SI and SFG, which had employed Watson, and that respondents had improperly terminated him, withheld compensation owed to him, and seized property in his possession.

Respondents initiated a cross-action against Watson. They filed an amended cross-complaint, which contained claims for conversion and misappropriation of trade secrets. This complaint alleged that after SFG terminated its employment relationship with Watson, he initially withheld a laptop computer owned by SFG, and he returned it only after he had improperly deleted the operating system and stored data. It also alleged that SFG's employees were required to execute confidentiality agreements regarding certain proprietary confidential manuals, and that Watson had failed to return several of these manuals, despite a demand for them. The amended complaint sought an injunction barring Watson from disclosing or using respondents' confidential information and compelling Watson to return the manuals, and other relief.

Following rulings on cross-motions for summary judgment and adjudication, a jury returned verdicts against Watson on his claims for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, unpaid wages, and conversion. The trial court found in favor of SI on its cross-claim for misappropriation of trade secrets, indicated that it would order injunctive relief, and awarded respondents their costs of suit.

Judgment was entered accordingly. A few days later, the trial court issued a permanent injunction barring Watson from â€