Contemporary Services Corporation v. Landmark Event Staffing Services Inc et al

Filing 363

AMENDED JUDGMENT by Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell, Related to: Notice of Lodging 360 and the Order Awarding Attorney Fees,, 359 (rfi)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13

CONTEMPORARY SERVICES
CORPORATION, a California
corporation,

14

Plaintiff,

15
16
17
18
19

CASE NO. SACV09-00681 BRO (ANx)
AMENDED JUDGMENT ON
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

v.
LANDMARK EVENT STAFFING
SERVICES, INC., a Delaware
corporation, PETER KRANSKE, an
individual, and MICHAEL HARRISON,
and individual,
Defendants.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PRINTED ON
RECYCLED PAPER

[PROPOSED] AMENDED JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

WHEREAS, on January 13, 2012, Plaintiff Contemporary Services

2

Corporation (“CSC”) filed its First Amended Complaint (Docket No. 74) against

3

Defendants Landmark Event Staffing Services, Inc. (“Landmark”), Peter Kranske

4

(“Kranske”) and Michael Harrison (“Harrison”) (collectively “Defendants”).

5

WHEREAS, CSC’s First Amended Complaint asserted claims for (1)

6

misappropriation of trade secrets, (2) violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act,

7

(3) violation of the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, (4) intentional

8

interference with prospective economic advantage, (5) civil conspiracy, (6) violation

9

of California’s Unfair Competition Law, (7) unjust enrichment, (8) aiding and

10

abetting, and (9) breach of contract.

11

WHEREAS, on July 16, 2014, Defendants filed a motion for summary

12

judgment, and alternatively for partial summary judgment (Docket No. 219), on all of

13

CSC’s claims in its First Amended Complaint.

14
15

WHEREAS, on August 14, 2014, CSC filed its opposition to Defendants’
motion (Docket No. 251).

16
17

WHEREAS, on August 25, 2014, Defendants filed their reply in support
of their motion (Docket No. 289).

18
19
20

WHEREAS, the Court heard oral argument by the parties on September
8, 2014.
WHEREAS, on September 9, 2014, the Court issued a minute order

21

granting summary judgment in Defendants’ favor on all of CSC’s claims (Docket No.

22

350) (the “Summary Judgment Order”).

23
24

WHEREAS, on September 15, 2014 the Court entered judgment in
Defendants’ favor (the “Original Judgment”) (Docket No. 355.)

25

WHEREAS, on September 29, 2014, Defendants and CSC filed a

26

stipulation in lieu of Defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees and sanctions and

27

application to tax costs and in which in which the parties stipulated as to the amount

28

of Defendants’ attorneys’ fees and costs, both taxable and non-taxable, in the amount

PRINTED ON
RECYCLED PAPER

1
AMENDED JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

of eight hundred thousand dollars ($800,000.00) (the “Award”).

2

WHEREAS, on September 30, 2014 this Court granted the parties’

3

stipulation and ordered the Award (the “Order Awarding Fees and Costs”) (Docket

4

No. 359).

5

Pursuant to and in accordance with the Summary Judgment Order, and

6

the Order Awarding Fees and Costs, and for all the reasons stated therein and on the

7

record at the September 8, 2014 hearing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that this

8

AMENDED JUDGMENT be entered as follows:

9
10
11

1.

On CSC’s first cause of action for misappropriation of trade

secrets, JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN DEFENDANTS’ FAVOR.
2.

On CSC’s second cause of action for violation of the Computer

12

Fraud and Abuse Act, JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN DEFENDANTS’

13

FAVOR.

14

3.

On CSC’s third cause of action for violation of the California

15

Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN

16

DEFENDANTS’ FAVOR.

17

4.

On CSC’s fourth cause of action for intentional interference with

18

prospective economic advantage, JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN

19

DEFENDANTS’ FAVOR.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PRINTED ON
RECYCLED PAPER

5.

On CSC’s fifth cause of action for civil conspiracy, JUDGMENT

IS ENTERED IN DEFENDANTS’ FAVOR.
6.

On CSC’s sixth cause of action for violation of California’s Unfair

Competition Law, JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN DEFENDANTS’ FAVOR.
7.

On CSC’s seventh cause of action for unjust enrichment,

JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN DEFENDANTS’ FAVOR.
8.

On CSC’s eighth cause of action for aiding and abetting,

JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN DEFENDANTS’ FAVOR.
9.

On CSC’s ninth cause of action for breach of contract,
2

AMENDED JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1
2
3
4
5

JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN DEFENDANTS’ FAVOR.
10.

Defendants are awarded attorneys’ fees and costs, both taxable and

non-taxable, in the amount of eight hundred thousand dollars ($800,000.00).
11.

This amended judgment supersedes and replaces the Original

Judgment (Docket No. 355.)

6
7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 2, 2014

____________________________________
HONORABLE BEVERLY REID O’CONNELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PRINTED ON
RECYCLED PAPER

3
AMENDED JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT