N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
B R ETTA SANTINI POLLAR A, Plaintiff - C ounte r-de fe nda nt - Appe lle e , And SANTINI PR ODUC TIONS, a Ne va da C orporation; OC EANAIR , INC ., a M a ssa c huse tts C orporation, C ounte r-de fe nda nts - Appe lle e s,
v. R ADIANT LOGISTIC S, INC ., a De la ware C orporation, De fe nda

nt - C ounte r-c l a im ant - Appe lla nt, And DB A DISTR IB UTION SER VIC ES, INC
. , a Ne wJe rse y

C orporation, Interve nor - Appe lla nt. No. 14-56025

D.C . No. 2:12-c v-00344-GAFJEM
M EM O R ANDUM * 

# FIL ED

M AY17 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.B R ETTA SANTINI POLLAR A, Plaintiff-c o unte r-de fe n da nt, And R ADIANT LOGISTIC S, INC ., a De la ware C orporation, De fe nda

nt-c ounte r-c la im ant - Appe lle e , And DB A DISTR IB UTION SER VIC ES, INC
. , a Ne wJe rse y

C orporation, Interve nor - Appe lle e , v. OC EANAIR , INC ., a

M a ssa c huse tts C orporation, C ounte r-de fe nda nt - Appe lla nt. No. 14-56318 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-00344-GAFJEM

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Gary A. Fe e ss, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay 2, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia
2B e fore : PREGER SON, B Y B EE, a nd N.R . SM ITH, C i rc u it Judge s. The se two a

ppe a ls a rise from a

disputebe twe e n a

n e m ploy e r and its form e r
e m ploy e e who quit he r job a nd sta rte d a c om pe ting fre ight forwa

rding busine ss. The e m ploy e r is DB ADistribution Servic e s , Inc ., a n d its pa re nt c o m pa ny R a dia nt Logistic s , Inc . (c olle c tive ly , “ C ounte rc la im ants” ). The e m ploy e e is B re tta

Santini Polla ra (“ Santini” ). Santini sought a de c la

ra tory judgm e nt in Los Ange le s Supe rior C ourt a ga inst C ounte rc la im ants, sta

ting tha t she wa s not bound by

a non-c om pe t e a gre e m e nt be twe e n he r husba

nd, Pa ul Polla ra (“ Polla ra ” ) an d C ounte rc la i m ants. C ounte rc la im ants the n re m ove d this a c t ion to U.S. Distric t C ourt in theC e n tra l Distric t of C a lifornia unde r dive rsity jurisdic tion a

nd brought a

c ounte rc la im
a ga inst Sa

ntini, he r c om

pa ny Santini Produc tions, Inc ., a nd c om p e t itor Oc e ana ir, Inc
. (c olle c tive ly , “ C ounte rde fe nda nts” ) for m isa

ppropria tion of tra de se c re ts in
c ustom e r inform ation. C ounte rc la i m ants a l so brought a c l a im a ga inst Oc e ana ir for induc i ng Polla

ra to bre a c h the non-c o m

pe te a gre e m e n t. At a jury tria l , a fte r C ounte rc la im a n ts c om p le te d the ir c a se in c hie f, the distric t c o urt gra

n te d Oc e ana i r’ s R

ule 50(a ) m otion for judgme nt a s a m atte r of la

w with re spe c t to theinduc e m e nt to bre a c h c la im , a nd the tria l proc e e d e d.

3Afte r the j ury found for C ounte rc la im ants on thetra de se c re ts c la im , the distric t c o urt gra

n te d C ounte rde fe nda

nts’ R ule 50(b) re n e we d m otion for judgme nt
a s a m atte r of la

w, the re by

va c ating thetra d e se c re t s portion of the jury ve rdic t. C ounte rc la im ants a

p p e a l both R

ule 50 judgm e nts (14-56025), a nd Oc e ana ir
a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing its motion for a ttorne y s’ fe e s (14-56318). W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. 1. W e re v ie w the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of R ule 50 m otions for judgme nt a s a
m atte r of la

w de novo. H

arpe r v . C

ity of Los Ange le

s , 533 F.3d 1010, 1021 (9th C ir. 2008). At the

tim e Oc e ana ir a lle ge dly c a use d Polla

ra to bre a c h the M e rge r Agre e m e nt, Polla

ra ha d a lre a dy

viola te d the a gre e m e n t at le a s t onc e . Furthe r, C ounte rc la im ants ha

v e not e sta

blishe d tha

t Oc e ana ir induc e d Polla

ra ’ s bre a c h in Se pte m be r of 2011. Hahn v . Diaz-Barba , 125 C a l. R ptr. 3d 242, 258 (C a l. C t. App. 2011) (listing c a

usation a s a

n e le m e nt of the tort of induc e m e nt to bre a c h a
c ontra c t). Thus, thedistric t c ourt did not err in gra n ting Oc e ana ir’ s R

u le 50(a )
m otion on the

induc e m e n t

c la im
. 2. Unde r the C a lifornia

Uniform Tra de Se c re t s Ac t, C a l. C iv. C ode § 3426,
e t se q. , a c u stom e r list m ay c o n stitute a prote c te d tra de se c re t if it inc lude s nonpublic inform ation tha

t provide s a

“ substa n tia l busine ss a dva

nta ge ” to c om

pe titors. Se e Morlife

, Inc . v . Pe rry , 66 C a l. R

ptr. 2d 731, 736 (C a l. C t. App. 1997). 4C ounte rc la im ants fa ile d to prove a prim a fa c ie c a s e of tra de se c re ts
m isa p propria tion be c a use the e vide nc e at tria l e sta blishe d tha

t the c u stom e r lists inc l ude d only

c onta c t inform ation tha

t wa s wide ly

known or a

va ila ble on industry
we bsite s. The lists did not inc lude non-public inform ation likethe c ustom e r’ s

“ pa rtic ula r ne e ds or c ha

ra c te ristic s.” Id . at 735. Tha t Sa ntini ha d spe c ia liz e d
e xpe rtise and good re lationships with C ounte rc la im ants’ c ustom e rs doe s not
c onve rt the othe rwise unprote c te d c ustom e r lists into prote c te d tra de se c re ts. The re fore , no e vide nc e supporte d C ounte rc la i m ants’ c onte n tion tha t the y posse s se d a

tra de se c re t in thec ustom e r lists, a nd the distric t

c ourt did not err in gran ting C ounte rde fe nda

nts’ R u le 50(b) re ne we d

m otion on the

tra de se c re ts c la im
. 3. W e re v ie w the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of a ttorne y s ’ fe e s for a

buse of disc re tion. Se a C

oast Foods, Inc . v . Lu-Mar Lobste r & Shrimp, Inc

. , 260 F.3d 1054, 1058 (9th C ir. 2001). An a ward of attorne y s’ fe e s is prope r whe re the c ourt finds both obje c t ive spe c iousne ss a nd subje c tive ba d fa ith. Ge mini Aluminum C orp. v . C al. C ustom Shape

s, Inc
. , 116 C a l. R

ptr. 2d 358, 368 (C a l. C t. App. 2002) (c iting C a l. C iv. C ode § 3426.4). Thedistric t c ourt found tha t C ounte rc la i m ants did not a c t in subje c tive ba d fa i th. B e c a use C ounte rde fe n da

n t s ha v e not shown that the distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re tion in so finding, we ne e d not de c ide whe the r C ounte rde fe nda

nts showe d tha

t the C ounte rc la im a

n ts’ a c t ions we re 5obje c tive ly

spe c i ous. AFFIRM E D
.

6