Filed 12/14/18 Leadfactors, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| LEADFACTORS, LLC,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant and Appellant.
| H043904 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 1-13-CV-247926)
|
Cisco Systems, Inc. (Cisco) seeks review of a postjudgment order denying its request for attorney fees after it successfully moved for summary judgment on a cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets brought by plaintiff Leadfactors, LLC. (Leadfactors). This appeal has been considered with Leadfactors, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (H043081), the appeal brought by Leadfactors from the underlying judgment in Cisco’s favor.
In the court below Cisco demurred to the second cause of action for breach of contract asserted by Leadfactors in its third amended complaint. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. Cisco then moved for summary judgment, contending that the misappropriation claim was barred by the statute of limitations prescribed in Civil Code section 3426.6.[1] The trial court agreed and granted the motion.
While the appeal in H043081 was pending, Cisco moved for attorney fees under section 3426.4, based on its assertion that Leadfactors had pursued its misappropriation claim in bad faith, knowing that it was time-barred. The court denied that motion, and Cisco appeals, asserting abuse of discretion.
In the underlying case, H043081, this court has determined that summary judgment was improperly granted. In light of that conclusion, Cisco is not the prevailing party on the misappropriation cause of action; hence, attorney fees are not available under the cited statute, section 3426.4.[2] Because there is no basis for the recovery of attorney fees for Cisco’s defense of the misappropriation claim, we need not address its contention that the lower court abused its discretion by denying the motion for attorney fees. The appeal is moot. (Cf. Venturi & Co. LLC v. Pacific Malibu Development Corp. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1417, 1424 [cross-appeal from denial of attorney fees moot because summary judgment improperly granted]; Irwin v. City of Hemet (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 507, 527 [order denying motion for attorney fees moot where summary judgment in favor of defendants erroneously granted].)
Disposition
The appeal from the postjudgment order of June 9, 2016 is dismissed as moot.
_________________________________
ELIA, ACTING P. J.
WE CONCUR:
_______________________________
MIHARA, J.
_______________________________
DANNER, J.
Leadfactors, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.
H043904
[1] All further statutory references are to the Civil Code.
[2] In an action for misappropriation of trade secrets, if the claim is made in bad faith, section 3426.4 provides for “reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party.”
