Circuitronix, LLC v. Kapoor

Filing 182

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ; denying 127 Motion for Attorney Fees; denying 128 Motion for Attorney Fees; denying 167 Motion for Attorney Fees; Adopting 175 Report and Recommendations. Certificate of Appealability: No Ruling Signed by Judge Beth Bloom on 7/25/2019. See attached document for full details. (cds)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 15-cv-61446-BLOOM/Valle
CIRCUITRONIX, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
SUNNY KAPOOR, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Sunny Kapoor’s Motion for Fees and
Costs (“Kapoor’s Motion for Fees and Costs”), ECF No. [127], Circuitronix, LLC’s Motion for
Attorneys’ Fees and Non-Taxable Expenses and Costs (“Circuitronix’s Motion for Fees and
Costs”), ECF No. [128], Sunny Kapoor’s Application for Appellate Attorneys’ Fees (“Kapoor’s
Application for Appellate Fees”), ECF No. [156-1], and Defendant Sunny Kapoor’s Motion for
Attorneys’ Fees incurred in connection with Circuitronix’s Motion for Relief from Final Order
under Rule 60(b), ECF No. [167] (collectively referred to as the “Motions”). The Court previously
referred the Motions to the Honorable Alicia O. Valle, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report
and Recommendation, ECF Nos. [159], [163], [170].
On April 12, 2019, Judge Valle issued a Report and Recommendation (the “Report”),
recommending that the Motions be denied. See Report, ECF No. [175]. The Report advised the
parties that objections to the Report must be filed within fourteen days. Id. at 17-18. Both parties
timely filed objections to Judge Valle’s Report. See ECF Nos. [179], [180]. Kapoor filed a
response to Circuitronix’s objection. See ECF No. [181].

Case No. 15-cv-61446-BLOOM/Valle

I.

BACKGROUND
The underlying facts of the instant action stem from an employment dispute between

Circuitronix and Kapoor, a former employee of the company. ECF No. [110] at 2. Following
Kapoor’s termination in 2015, Circuitronix filed suit against him, asserting claims for the improper
dissemination of Circuitronix’s proprietary information, self-dealing, and other alleged breaches
of employment agreements. Id. In response to Circuitronix’s claims, Kapoor filed a counterclaim
against Circuitronix and its CEO, asserting claims for breach of employment contract, unlawful
retaliation, civil theft, and unpaid wages. Id. In December of 2015, the parties entered into a
settlement agreement, which was subsequently approved by the Court. ECF No. [44].
On December 30, 2015, Circuitronix filed its first motion for enforcement of the Settlement
Agreement, claiming that Kapoor was competing directly with Circuitronix through work he was
performing at the time for Bawa Machine and Tool Manufacturing (“BMTM”). See ECF No. [45].
That motion was resolved when the parties filed a Joint Stipulation on January 22, 2016, which
specifically provided, inter alia, that “[p]ursuant to the Parties’ Settlement Agreement, Kapoor
shall not, directly or indirectly, engage in any line of Circuitronix’s business, including within the
scope of his work with [BMTM].” ECF No. [48]. The Joint Stipulation also identified certain
metal parts that Kapoor’s work with BMTM did not involve. See id. at 2 n.1.
On September 9, 2016, Kapoor filed a Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement. See
ECF No. [50]. Kapoor filed the motion in response to letters sent by Circuitronix to BMTM and
Koala Holdings, LLC (“Koala”), relating to Circuitronix’s claim that Kapoor was improperly
competing with the company in violation of the Settlement Agreement. ECF Nos. [73] at 3; [110]
at 6.

In the motion, Kapoor argued that the letters violated the Settlement Agreement’s

2

Case No. 15-cv-61446-BLOOM/Valle
confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses. ECF No. [50]. Kapoor further requested that he
be granted limited discovery to determine if Circuitronix had sent any additional violative letters
to third parties
On September 26, 2016, Circuitronix filed its own Cross-Motion to enforce the Settlement
Agreement, claiming that Kapoor was competing directly with Circuitronix through work he was
performing at the time for BMTM. See ECF No. [55]. Circuitronix also requested limited
discovery in order to seek additional evidence of Kapoor’s alleged breach of the Settlement
Agreement. See Id.
The Court held an initial evidentiary hearing on the Cross-Motions on December 8, 2016.
Following the initial evidentiary hearing, the Court entered an Order defining Circuitronix’s line
of business for purposes of the Settlement Agreement. ECF No. [73] at 12-13. Having defined
Circuitronix’s line of business, this Order also allowed Circuitronix limited discovery going
forward to determine whether Kapoor materially breached the Settlement Agreement by
competing in that line of business or “by otherwise violating the restrictive covenants found under
paragraphs 4 or 5 of the Settlement Agreement.” Id. at 15. With respect to relief, the Court held
that Circuitronix would not be permitted to seek damages (including liquidated damages) for
Kapoor’s alleged breach of the Settlement Agreement. See id. at 13-15. Instead, the Court
explained that it would only consider Circuitronix’s Cross-Motion “insofar as it seeks injunctive
relief” because Circuitronix failed to meaningfully comply with the conferral requirements under
Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) before filing the Cross-Motion. Id. at 15. Regarding Kapoor’s Motion, the
Court held in the December 16, 2016 Order that the two letters Circuitronix sent to BMTM and
Koala Holdings did not violate the confidentiality or non-disparagement clauses of the Settlement
Agreement, and therefore denied Kapoor’s Motion to that extent. However, the Court allowed

3

Case No. 15-cv-61446-BLOOM/Valle
Kapoor limited discovery to determine whether other third-party communications that Circuitronix
had apparently sent out violated the Settlement Agreements’ confidentiality and nondisparagement clauses. Id. at 6-7, 15.
At the final evidentiary hearing, the Court addressed both parties’ Motions to Enforce the
Settlement Agreement. During the hearing, Kapoor conceded that the additional letters
Circuitronix had sent out to third parties, which were produced during the parties’ limited
discovery, did not violate the Settlement Agreements’ confidentiality and non-disparagement
clauses. On August 10, 2017, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing and in the
parties briefing, the Court issued an Order denying the respective Motions in a Final Order on
Cross-Motions to Enforce Settlement Agreement. ECF No. [110]. Thereafter, Circuitronix
appealed the Court’s ruling. ECF No. [125]. On October 1, 2018, the Eleventh Circuit issued its
mandate affirming the Court’s Final Order. ECF No. [150]. The Eleventh Circuit transferred
Kapoor’s Application for Appellate Attorney’s Fees to the District Court for its consideration on
the Application. ECF No. [156]. The parties then renewed their respective request for attorneys’
fees and costs. ECF Nos. [159], [163]. Defendant Kapoor also sought his attorneys’ fees related
to the fees incurred as a result of the filing of Circuitronix’s Motion for Relief from Final Order,
ECF No. [145]. ECF No. [167].
II.

DISCUSSION
Both parties have objected to the Report. See ECF Nos. [179], [180]. Defendant Sunny

Kapoor objects to the Report’s recommendation that his Motions for Attorneys’ Fees be denied,
arguing that while it initiated the post-settlement litigation, the substantial volume of the litigation
related to the counterclaims asserted by Circuitronix. ECF No. [179], at 3-5. Defendant Kapoor
also argues that the Report fails to undertake any factual analysis as to the significant issues tried,

4

Case No. 15-cv-61446-BLOOM/Valle
and therefore has improperly determined the attorneys’ fee issue to be a “wash.” Id. at 2-6. Lastly,
Kapoor argues that even if the Court adopts the Report’s recommendation in denying his motions
for attorneys’ fees, his Application for Appellate Attorneys’ Fees should nonetheless be granted.
Id. at 11-14.
Circuitronix also objects to the Report’s recommendation that its Motion for Fees and Costs
be denied, and the Report’s finding that no party was the “prevailing party.” Specifically,
Circuitronix argues that where a court has determined a “tie” has occurred, the party who was sued
and found not liable should be determined to be the “prevailing party.” ECF No. [180], at 1.
Circuitronix further objects as to Judge Valle’s finding that because both parties lost on all of their
claims, there was a “compelling reason” to find that neither party prevailed. Id. at 2.
Turning to Defendant Kapoor’s objections, the Court finds they are also without merit.
Defendant Kapoor first appears to argue that the significant issue in an action should be determined
by which issue resulted in the parties expending the most resources. However, Defendant Kapoor
cites no authority to support this proposition. Further, an issue can be significant even if it was
resolved efficiently by the Court during the duration of the litigation. Moreover, the Court
disagrees with Defendant Kapoor’s second objection that the Report fails to identify the significant
issues that arose in this litigation. The Report specifically states
[W]here both parties sought to enforce the Settlement Agreement and neither
succeeded, the undersigned finds that the application of the “significant issues” test
results in a “wash.” Specifically, Kapoor lost on his claim that Circuitronix violated
the Settlement Agreement’s confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions . . .
Similarly, Circuitronix lost its cross-motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement.
ECF No. [175], at 12-13. Here, the Court finds that the Report clearly delineates what the
significant issues were relating the Motions. Moreover, the factual record from the multiple and
lengthy hearing and numerous exhibits and testimony supports the finding that neither party

5

Case No. 15-cv-61446-BLOOM/Valle
prevailed in their respective positions. Applying Florida law, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
has construed the term “prevailing party” to be the party that has prevailed on the “significant
issues in the litigation”:
The Florida Supreme Court has held that, in general, “the party prevailing on the
significant issues in the litigation is the party that should be considered the
prevailing party for attorney’s fees.” Moritz v. Hoyt Enters., Inc., 604 So. 2d 807,
810 (Fla. 1992); see also Prosperi v. Code, Inc., 626 So. 2d 1360, 1363 (Fla. 1993)
(courts should look to which party prevailed on the “significant issues”). In so
holding, the Florida Supreme Court has taken guidance from the United States
Supreme Court, which has “held that the test is whether the party ‘succeeded on
any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit the parties
sought in bringing suit.’” Moritz, 604 So. 2d at 809-10 (quoting Hensley v.
Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 103 S. Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983)) (internal
quotation marks and brackets removed). Moritz continued: “It is our view that the
fairest test to determine who is the prevailing party is to allow the trial judge to
determine from the record which party has in fact prevailed on the significant issues
tried before the court.” Id. at 810.
Chow v. Chak Yam Chau, 2015 WL 7258668, at *5 (11th Cir. Nov. 17, 2015); see also Hensley v.
Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983) (stating that parties “may be considered ‘prevailing parties’
for attorney’s fees purposes if they succeed on any significant issue in litigation....”).
Consistent with the Report’s findings and upon the Court’s de novo review, it is clear that
the significant litigated issues that relate to the pending Attorneys’ Fees motions are two-fold. The
first significant issue, a claim raised by Defendant Kapoor, was whether the correspondences sent
by Circuitronix to the third-party companies violated the Settlement Agreement’s confidentiality
and non-disparagement provisions. The second significant issue, a claim raised by Circuitronix,
was whether Kapoor materially breached the Settlement Agreement between the parties through
his involvement with Imaginasian, Ltd. and Imaginasian Equipments Pvt. Ltd., Bawa Machine and
Tool Mf. Co. and BMTM, and Koala. Both parties lost their respective motions and, as a result,
prevailed on the other party’s respective motion. Neither party was successful on the claims they
each asserted, neither party was found liable and neither party was awarded damages or injunctive

6

Case No. 15-cv-61446-BLOOM/Valle
relief. The Florida Supreme Court has made clear that trial courts also have the discretion to
determine that there is no prevailing party and, thus, to decline to award attorney’s fees to either
party. Trvtek v. Gale Indus., 3 So. 3d 1194, 1196 (Fla. 2009) (“[T]here is no mandatory
requirement that the trial court determine that one party is the ‘prevailing party.’”); see also
Schoenlank v. Schoenlank, 128 So. 3d 118, 122 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (holding that trial court did
not abuse its discretion by finding that both parties prevailed and neither was entitled to attorneys’
fees award); M.A. Hajianpour, M.D., P.A. v. Khosrow Maleki, P.A., 975 So. 2d 1288, 1290 (Fla.
4th DCA 2008) (concluding that not abuse of discretion to decline fee award where parties “battled
to a draw” and neither party prevailed).
The Court agrees with the Report’s finding that compelling circumstances exist warranting
the determination that neither party was the prevailing party. Where each party wins and each
party loses on a significant issue, the court has the discretion to conclude that neither party
prevailed in the litigation. Specifically, neither party prevailed on the claims brought and each
party was only successful in the defense against one another’s claims.
The Court also finds Defendant Kapoor’s objection to the Report’s denial of his appellate
attorneys’ fees to be without merit. In his objections, Defendant Kapoor argues that the Settlement
Agreement between the parties contains a broad prevailing party attorneys’ fees provision, which
includes fees incurred on appeal. ECF No. [179], at 11. However, this provision explicitly states
that it applies to the prevailing party. Here, the Report found and this Court agrees, there is no
prevailing party. Therefore, the Court agrees with the Report that Defendant Kapoor is not entitled
to his appellate attorneys’ fees. The Court also agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis that
the appeal filed by Circuitronix does not warrant an attorneys’ fee award, as the appeal was not
frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.

7

Case No. 15-cv-61446-BLOOM/Valle
Accordingly, the Court agrees with the Report that neither party has prevailed in this
litigation and therefore, neither party is entitled to fees. Defendant Kapoor’s objections are
overruled.
Regarding Circuitronix’s first objection to the Report’s conclusion that where a court
determines that a “tie” has occurred, the party who was sued should be determined to be the
prevailing party, such argument is without merit. The fees sought by the parties in the instant
action were not a result of the initiation of the suit from its infancy, but rather was a collateral issue
that was raised after the parties had settled the underlying dispute. Further, there is no bright-line
rule as Circuitronix seems to argue here. Indeed, Courts in this District have regularly held that
there is no prevailing party where each party loses on all or some of the claims brought. See, e.g.,
Dear v. Q Club Hotel, LLC, No. 15-CV-60474, 2017 WL 5665359, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 1, 2017)
(concluding that where each party wins and each party loses on a significant issue, the court has
the discretion to conclude that neither party prevailed), report and recommendation adopted, No.
15-60474-CIV, 2017 WL 5665361 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 20, 2017); Meth Lab Cleanup, LLC v.
Spaulding Decon, LLC, No. 8:14-CV-3129-T-30TBM, 2016 WL 3172064, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June
7, 2016) (declining to award prevailing party attorneys’ fees where each party received some of
what it sought, but neither party received all what it sought); Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Big Lots
Stores, Inc., No. 9:11-CV-80601-DMM, 2016 WL 2918152, at *12 (S.D. Fla. May 18, 2016)
(acknowledging the court’s discretion to deny “prevailing party” attorneys’ fees where none of the
parties succeeded on their claims or counterclaims). Accordingly, Circuitronix’s objections have
been thoroughly considered and are overruled.

8

Case No. 15-cv-61446-BLOOM/Valle
III.

CONCLUSION
The Court finds Judge Valle’s Report to be well reasoned and correct and the Court agrees

with Judge Valle’s analysis. Accordingly, having conducted a de novo review of Judge Valle’s
Report and Recommendation, having considered the objections thereto and otherwise being fully
advised, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Judge Valle’s Report, ECF No. [175], is ADOPTED;
2.

Plaintiff Circuitronix’s Objections, ECF No. [179], are OVERRULED;

3. Defendant Kapoor’s Objections, ECF No. [180], are OVERRULED;
4. Defendant Kapoor’s Motion for Fees and Costs, ECF No. [127], is DENIED.
5. Plaintiff Circuitronix’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Non-Taxable Expenses and
Costs, ECF No. [128], is DENIED;
6. Defendant Kapoor’s Application for Appellate Attorneys’ Fees, ECF No. [156-1],
is DENIED; and
7. Defendant Kapoor’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees Related to the Motion for Relief
from Final Order under Rule 60(b), ECF No. [167], is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on July 25, 2019.

_________________________________
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:
Counsel of Record

9