Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-03384/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-03384-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

1

Case No. 5:13-cv-03384-PSG

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR FEES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VENTURE CORPORATION, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JAMES P. BARRETT,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:13-cv-03384-PSG

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR 

FEES

(Re: Docket Nos. 248, 257)

Plaintiffs Venture Corporation Ltd. and Venture Design Services, Inc., and Defendant 

James P. Barrett present dueling motions for fees and costs.

1

Each side believes that it was the 

prevailing party at trial.2 However, as in the 50th Hunger Games arena, there can be only one 

victor for the purpose of awarding fees. Here, it is the Ventures. 

California law provides for the recovery of attorney’s fees when authorized by statute, 

contract or law.

3

 In contract cases, “where the contract specifically provides that attorney’s fees 

and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded . . . then the party who is 

determined to be the party prevailing on the contract . . . shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s 

fees in addition to other costs.”

4

“The court . . . shall determine who is the party prevailing on the 

contract,” and “the party prevailing . . . shall be the party who recovered a greater relief in the 

 

1

See Docket Nos. 248, 257.

2

See Docket No. 248 at 9; Docket No. 257 at 8-10.

3

See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1033.5(a)(10).

4 Cal. Civ. Code § 1717.

Case 5:13-cv-03384-HRL Document 279 Filed 12/10/15 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No. 5:13-cv-03384-PSG

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR FEES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

action on the contract.”

5

The 2003 Employee Confidential Information and Inventions Agreement between Barrett 

and VDSI contains a fee-shifting clause: “[If VDSI] is successful on any action or proceeding it 

brings to enforce or interpret this Agreement, it shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and 

costs.”6 Since this contract term allows for fees, the next inquiry is to determine who the 

prevailing party is.

The Ventures are the prevailing party because they achieved all their litigation goals and 

certainly recovered greater relief in the contract action than Barrett did.

7

 The jury found that Cal. 

Labor Code § 2870 did not protect the “MineTracer,” “Gas Scrubber” and “Gas Monitor”

inventions from the Inventions Agreement’s assignment clause.

8

 The Ventures thus established 

the central thrust of their campaign that ownership of the inventions was automatically assigned 

by operation of law from Barrett to VDSI and VDSI to VCL.

9

 

Barrett nevertheless argues that he is the prevailing party because the jury also found that 

VDSI had forfeited its ownership rights to the inventions.

10

 However, following trial, the court 

held that there was not substantial evidence to support the jury’s finding on forfeiture and granted 

judgment as a matter of law for the Ventures.11 Barrett therefore did not prevail on any of his 

claims, and his motion for fees must be DENIED.

 

5

Id. at § 1717(b)(1).

6 Docket No. 7-4 at § 5.3.

7 Barrett argues that VCL lacks standing for this motion and any right to fees, because VCL is not 

party to any contract with a fee-shifting clause. See Docket No. 262 at 12-14. However, VDSI 

plainly has both, as a party to the Inventions Agreement. See Docket No. 7-4.

8

See Docket No. 238 at 3.

9

See Docket No. 278 at 7-9.

10 See Docket No. 248 at 7-9; Docket No. 238 at 4.

11 See Docket No. 278 at 7-9.

Case 5:13-cv-03384-HRL Document 279 Filed 12/10/15 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No. 5:13-cv-03384-PSG

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR FEES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The court nevertheless declines to grant the Ventures’ motion for fees, at least for the 

moment. The Ventures’ motion for fees includes charts summarizing the daily and total hours 

billed by the Ventures’ counsel, but does not include individual entries detailing counsel’s work.12

The Ventures state that this is a deliberate omission; the Ventures fear that including detailed 

descriptions of work performed by counsel would disclose information protected by the attorneyclient privilege and work product doctrine.13 Counsel for the Ventures stated in his declaration 

that “Barrett . . . is likely to appeal,”

14 and the Ventures’ concerns about disclosure are legitimate 

in light of that potential appeal. Nonetheless, this failure to include detailed entries has two 

unfortunate effects: first, the court is unable to assess, as it must, if the requested fees are 

reasonable, and Barrett is unable to challenge individual entries as unreasonable, excessive or 

otherwise flawed, as is his right. The Ventures’ motion for fees therefore is DENIED without 

prejudice to renewal, within fourteen days of either the expiration of the period for appeal or upon 

resolution of any appeal.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 10, 2015

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

 

12 See Docket Nos. 258-1, 258-2.

13 See Docket No. 258 at ¶ 17.

14 Id.

Case 5:13-cv-03384-HRL Document 279 Filed 12/10/15 Page 3 of 3