Mahamedi et al v. Paradice et al
Filing
136
ORDER DENYING 127 DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 11/16/2017. (ejdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/16/2017)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
SAN JOSE DIVISION
14
15
MAHAMEDI IP LAW, LLP, et al.,
Case No. 5:16-cv-02805-EJD
Plaintiffs,
16
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
v.
17
18
WILLIAM PARADICE,
Re: Dkt. No. 127
Defendant.
19
20
21
This case arose from the dissolution of a law partnership between Plaintiff Zurvan
22
Mahamedi and Defendant William Paradice. First Am. Compl. (“FAC”), Dkt. No. 11. Mahamedi
23
alleged that Paradice improperly copied parts of the old firm’s database containing information
24
about Mahamedi’s clients. Id. Mahamedi asserted a variety of claims, including a claim under the
25
federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”). Id. ¶¶ 22–31. On August 24, 2017, this Court
26
granted Paradice’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed Mahamedi’s complaint. Dkt. No.
27
126.
28
Case No.: 5:16-cv-02805-EJD
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
1
1
Paradice now moves for an award of attorneys’ fees. Def.’s Mot. for Att’ys’ Fees (“Mot.”),
2
Dkt. No. 127. Paradice argues that he is entitled to a fees award under the attorneys’ fees provision
3
of the DTSA, which provides that
4
5
6
7
8
9
a court may, . . . if a claim of [trade secret] misappropriation is made
in bad faith, which may be established by circumstantial evidence, a
motion to terminate an injunction is made or opposed in bad faith, or
the trade secret was willfully and maliciously misappropriated,
award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party.
18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(D); Mot. 2.
Paradice’s argument fails because he is not the “prevailing party” in this litigation. This
Court has not adjudicated the merits of Mahamedi’s DTSA claims. Rather, by granting Paradice’s
motion to compel arbitration, this Court determined that arbitration is the proper forum for
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
deciding the merits. See Molina v. Scandinavian Designs, Inc., No. 13-cv-04256 NC, 2014 WL
12
1615177, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2014) (“an order compelling arbitration, being merely a
13
preliminary procedural order that is not on the merits and does not materially alter the legal
14
relationship of the parties, does not make the litigant obtaining the order a prevailing party for
15
purposes of a fee award”).
16
In his reply brief, Paradice argues that he is, in fact, the prevailing party: “And, as noted in
17
Flooring 101, ‘[i]f a party succeeds on a motion to compel arbitration, it is the prevailing party,’
18
and the final resolution of the arbitration is not required before attorney’s fees can be awarded.”
19
Def.’s Reply in Support of Mot. for Att’ys’ Fees 4, Dkt. No. 132 (quoting Flooring 101, Inc. v.
20
Shaw Indus., Inc., No. CV 09-2279 DSF, 2009 WL 10675795, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2009)). But
21
Paradice omits the end of the sentence he quotes from Flooring 101, which reads in full: “If a
22
party succeeds on a motion to compel arbitration, it is the prevailing party for § 1717 purposes.”
23
Flooring 101, 2009 WL 10675795, at *2 (emphasis added). The court is referring to Cal. Civ.
24
Code § 1717, which provides that “[w]hen [a] suit is brought on the basis of a contract and the
25
terms of the contract provide for the award of attorney’s fees, the court shall award attorney’s fees
26
to the prevailing party.” Id. at *1 (emphasis added). Flooring 101 provides no support for
27
Paradice’s position because Paradice seeks fees under 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(D), not under a
28
Case No.: 5:16-cv-02805-EJD
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
2
1
contractual attorneys’ fees provision. To the extent Paradice argues that he is entitled to attorneys’
2
fees on the basis of a contract between the parties, rather than under the DTSA, that argument is
3
improper because he failed to raise it in his opening brief.1
Accordingly, Paradice’s motion for attorneys’ fees is DENIED.
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
7
Dated: November 16, 2017
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Mahamedi moves to strike Paradice’s reply brief because Paradice failed to raise this argument
in his opening brief. Dkt. No. 133. To that extent, Mahamedi’s motion to strike is GRANTED.
However, in his motion to strike, Mahamedi also argues that Paradice may not cite cases in his
reply brief that were not cited in his opening brief or in Mahamedi’s opposition brief. Id. at 3–4.
The authority Mahamedi cites does not support this position. The Court also notes that, in
Mahamedi’s reply brief in support of his motion for leave to file a second amended complaint
(Dkt. No. 35), Mahamedi cites twelve cases that were not cited in his opening brief (Dkt. No. 25)
or in Paradice’s opposition brief (Dkt. No. 30). As such, to that extent, Mahamedi’s motion to
strike is DENIED.
Case No.: 5:16-cv-02805-EJD
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?