Court Opinion

ID: 9881939
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-04 18:18:17.943802+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:27.296808
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/4/23 BioCorRx v. Pellecome CA4/3

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

                IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                                     FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION THREE

 BIOCORRX, INC.,

      Plaintiff and Appellant,                                         G061435

           v.                                                          (Super. Ct. No. 30-2019-01101907)

 PELLECOME, LLC,                                                       OPINION

      Defendant and Respondent.

                   Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Michael
J. Strickroth and Nancy E. Zeltzer, Judges. Affirmed. Request for judicial notice denied.
                   Grant Shenon, David M. Almaraz and Gabriela Gevorkian for Plaintiff and
Appellant.
                   Esstein Becker & Green, James A. Goodman and Susan Graham for
Defendant and Respondent.
                                             *               *               *
              This is an appeal following a motion for summary judgment or adjudication
(MSJ) filed by defendant Pellecome, LLC, against plaintiff BioCorRx, Inc. In this case
involving a dispute over a Mutual Nondisclosure and Confidentiality Agreement (NDA),
the trial court granted summary adjudication on BioCorRx’s causes of action for breach
of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, finding that
BioCorRx could not establish Pellecome commercially exploited or financially benefitted
from proprietary information. BioCorRx argues the court misinterpreted the NDA and
incorrectly determined there were no triable issues of material fact, among other things.
BioCorRx also argues the court abused its discretion by awarding Pellecome attorney
fees. We conclude that Pellecome met the standard for summary adjudication and that
BioCorRx failed to establish a triable issue of material fact. We further find no abuse of
discretion as to the attorney fee award. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

                                               I
                                           FACTS1
              BioCorRx is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business in
Orange County. It describes itself as “a leading-edge healthcare solutions company
focused on improving the lives of those who struggle with alcohol, opioid and other
addictive disorders; including eating and weight disorders.” With respect to alcohol and
certain opiod addictions, BioCorRx states its “program is a proprietary medication-
assisted treatment . . . cognitive behavioral therapy . . . program that utilizes a multi-
pronged approach to assist in addressing the underlying physical and behavioral issues of
alcohol and opioid addiction.” The medication component used naltrexone pellets.
Naltrexone is an opioid antagonist approved by the FDA for the treatment of drug and

1
 Our statement of facts is based on the evidence presented to the trial court. Unsupported
factual statements – for example, those included in points and authorities without citation
to supporting evidence – are disregarded.

                                               2
alcohol addiction. (See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6353110 [as of
August 31, 2023], archived at: http://perma.cc/4XBN-HRAE.)
                In 2017, BioCorRx began to look into using its alcohol and opioid
addiction treatments for what it refers to as “weight addiction.” It called this program
“UnCraveRX” and claimed it invested approximately $1.1 million into the program from
2017 to 2021.
                Pellecome, which was founded in 2017, manufactured and sold pellet
insertion devices, which were originally used to insert hormone replacement therapy
pellets. Melissa Vinci-Rainis, Pellecome’s CEO, had come across BioCorRx in the
course of researching naltrexone, and she had noticed that BioCorRx was using 10 cc
syringes to insert 10 mm diameter pellets, which she believed would cause a patient
considerable discomfort due to the syringe’s size. In August 2018, Vinci-Rainis
contacted BioCorRx’s then-CEO, Brady Granier, to discuss the use of Pellecome’s
insertion device in BioCorRx’s alcohol and opiate addiction programs. At this point in
time, the parties had not discussed weight loss programs.
                On September 10, the parties executed an NDA. In relevant part, the NDA
stated: “Confidentiality. ‘Confidential Information’ shall mean and include, without
limitation, any and all information furnished by the Disclosing Party to the Receiving
Party in tangible, visible, electronic or verbal form or by observation or by any other
means, including, but not limited to, any trade secret or proprietary information, legal
documents, research documents, patent applications, business plans, protocols, processes,
samples, formulae, prospective and current products, clinical data and analyses, test
results, toxicology and pharmacology information, study procedures and manuals, case
report forms and their content, statistical reports, project management and staffing,
manufacturing processes, financial data, forecasts and projections, proprietary software
and database structures, research, ‘know-how,’ technology under development, marketing
information, regardless of whether such disclosures are marked or otherwise designated

                                             3
as ‘Confidential’ and including (but not limited to information disclosed between the
parties prior to the date of this Agreement; and the terms and conditions of this
Agreement, all proposals and requests for proposals (including those submitted to the
Receiving Party prior to the date of this Agreement and marked as Confidential at the
time of delivery), and the existence of the discussions between the Parties to which this
Agreement pertains. [¶] The Parties agree that the Information will be kept strictly
confidential and will not be used by either Party directly or indirectly for any purpose or
in any business other than for the sole purpose of evaluating the Transaction. The Parties
agree to transmit the Information only to those representatives who need to know the
Information for the purpose of evaluating the Transaction, who are informed of the
confidential nature of the Information and who specifically agree to be bound by the
terms of this Agreement. The Parties will be responsible for any breach of this
Agreement by their affiliates or representatives.” The NDA also stated the parties agreed
not to knowingly make use of any “‘inside information’” for purposes other than
completing the transaction between them, or to disclose any of the information. Other
portions of the NDA will be discussed as relevant.
              After the NDA was signed, Pellecome designed a larger insertion device for
use with the naltrexone pellets. In September 2018, Pellecome’s founder and medical
director traveled to BioCorRx’s California office to perform a demonstration. According
to Vinci-Rainis, using a Pellecome device, BioCorRx could insert smaller pellets using
the same dose of naltrexone. Many of her communications, after the NDA was signed,
were with Lourdes Felix, BioCorRx’s chief operating officer.
              Pellecome became aware that BioCorRx was developing a weight loss
program, and Vinci-Rainis and Felix had ongoing discussions about it. Sometime in the
first half of 2019, Vinci-Rainis learned BioCorRx intended to call the program
UnCraveRx.

                                             4
               In approximately March 2019, Felix told Vinci-Rainis that BioCorRx
needed a medical director for the weight loss program. Vinci-Rainis introduced Felix to
Dr. Kenneth Orbeck, then medical director at Pellecome, who was an expert on insertion
devices. Orbeck subsequently became the UnCraveRx program’s medical director.
Vinci-Rainis and Felix continued to discuss purchase quantities and the logistics and cost
of Pellecome’s insertion device. In June, Vinci-Rainis sent Felix a proposed term sheet.
The parties met on June 21 to attempt to negotiate an agreement, but the attempt failed.
Approximately two weeks later, Felix informed Vinci-Rainis that BioCorRx would not
use Pellecome’s insertion device for the UnCraveRx program. Shortly thereafter, Orbeck
resigned from BioCorRx.
               According to Vinci-Rainis, after the BioCorRx deal fell apart, she spoke to
employees of Pellecome and its partner companies to discuss “creating an overall
wellness program using a Pellecome insertion device that we could market to aesthetics
facilities. [Pellecome founder] Dr. Jacome, Dr. Orbeck, and I developed a marketing
strategy focused on beauty, body composition, building muscle, detoxing the gut, craving
control, and metabolic support.”
               On July 18, Pellecome sent out an e-mail announcing Pellecome FIT. At
the time, the program was not complete or ready for launch, but Vinci-Rainis sent it to
prime the market. At a meeting of Pellecome and its partners in August, it was decided
that bioidentical hormone therapy (BHRT) “would be the basis of the program and that
we would add a supplement line, naltrexone, and peptides. Naltrexone was not the focus
of the program. Instead, it was just one of several tools for our customers (the
practitioners) to utilize.”
               After learning of Pellecome FIT, BioCorRx believed that Pellecome had
used BioCorRx’s confidential information to develop the Pellecome FIT program in
violation of the NDA. According to BioCorRx, “[i]t is very clear that Pellecome used
illicit methods to gain confidential information from BioCorRx to learn about Naltrexone

                                             5
pellet formulation and use it for its own Pellecome FIT Project. Without having access to
BioCorRx’s confidential information, Pellecome would not have been able to incorporate
naltrexone into its own program nor could it have studied UnCraveRx’s pricing
structures, business models, plans for launch, and market size information to improve and
perfect in its own Pellecome FIT program.” This is the heart of BioCorRx’s case.
               On October 2, 2019, BioCorRx filed the instant action, asserting causes of
action for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unfair
business practices under Business and Professions Code section 17200, and fraudulent
concealment/misrepresentation.
               Over two years later, Pellecome filed the instant MSJ, or alternatively,
summary adjudication. After briefing and oral argument, on April 6, 2021, the trial court
issued a eight-page minute order granting summary adjudication as to BioCorRx’s causes
of action for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing. As to the each claim, the court found BioCorRx’s claim “fails as a matter of law
because BioCorRx cannot establish Pellecome commercially exploited or financially
benefitted from BioCorRx’s proprietary information.” (Italics omitted.)
               In July, BioCorRx voluntarily dismissed the entire action. Pellecome filed
for attorney fees, and the court granted the motion in the amount of $222,932.55 based on
the contractual language and Pellecome’s status as prevailing party. Judgment for
Pellecome was subsequently entered for $222,932.55 and $12,953.45 in costs. BioCorRx
now appeals.

                                             II
                                       DISCUSSION
Request for Judicial Notice
               BioCorRx requests this court take judicial notice of a page of Pellecome’s
web site dated November 30, 2022, a year and a half after the trial court issued its order

                                              6
ruling on the summary judgment motion on April 6, 2021. There are numerous reasons
to deny this request, but for the sake of simplicity, we shall deny it because it was not
before the trial court. “Reviewing courts generally do not take judicial notice of evidence
not presented to the trial court.” (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14
Cal.4th 434, 444, fn. 3.) BioCorRx does not contend, and we would not find even if they
had, that this is an exceptional circumstance warranting a different finding. The request
is denied.

Summary Judgment Standard of Review and Statutory Framework
              Summary judgment is appropriate “if all the papers submitted show that
there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) To prevail on the
motion, a defendant must demonstrate the plaintiff’s cause of action has no merit. This
requirement can be satisfied by showing either one or more elements of the cause of
action cannot be established or that a complete defense exists. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c,
subds. (o), (p); Bardin v. Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Co. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 494,
499-500.)
              “[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of
production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of
material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing
party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie
showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield
Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) “A prima facie showing is one that is sufficient to
support the position of the party in question.” (Id. at pp. 850-851.) “There is a triable
issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to
find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the
applicable standard of proof.” (Id. at p. 850.)

                                               7
              In performing our de novo review, we use the same procedure as the trial
court. We first consider the pleadings to determine the elements of each cause of action.
Then we review the motion to determine if it establishes facts, supported by admissible
evidence, to justify judgment in favor of the moving party. Assuming this burden is met,
we then look to the opposition and “decide whether the opposing party has demonstrated
the existence of a triable, material fact issue.” (Chavez v. Carpenter (2001) 91
Cal.App.4th 1433, 1438.) We liberally construe the evidence in support of the party
opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that
party. (Wiener v. Southcoast Childcare Centers, Inc. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1138, 1142.)

Breach of Contract
              As noted above, the party moving for summary judgment has the “initial
burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable
issue of material fact.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 850.)
In order to make this determination, we review the law and evidence relevant to the
pleaded cause of action. If the moving party carries its burden of production on each
element, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the existence of a triable
issue of material fact. (Id. at pp. 850-851.)
              The only causes of action relevant here are breach of contract and breach of
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. “A cause of action for breach of
contract requires proof of the following elements: (1) existence of the contract;
(2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance; (3) defendant’s breach; and
(4) damages to plaintiff as a result of the breach.” (CDF Firefighters v. Maldonado
(2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1226, 1239.)
              Here, Pellecome argued successfully in the trial court that BioCorRx could
not establish that Pellecome used any of its proprietary information, which would
constitute a breach of the contract or the implied covenant. Pellecome pointed to

                                                8
BioCorRx’s discovery responses, which stated its contention that Pellecome took and
used four categories of information: pricing structures, business model information,
plans for launching UnCraveRx, and market size information. In support of its MSJ,
Pellecome offered the declaration of Vinci-Rainis and deposition testimony from
BioCorRx’s chief operating officer to establish that Pellecome did not use any of that
information in launching Pellecome FIT, and further, it was offering a very different
product than UnCraveRx.
              With respect to the four categories of information BioCorRx alleged
Pellecome used, “Pellecome did not utilize BioCorRx’s pricing structures, business
model information, plans for launching UnCraveRx, or market size information in
launching or marketing Pellecome FIT. Pellecome has never used that information, and
it has no intention of ever using that information. As such, Pellecome has not
commercially exploited that information or financially benefitted from that information.”
BioCorRx had pointed to the pricing information in an e-mail from Felix in June 2019.
The e-mail stated that UnCraveRx’s retail price to providers would be $995 for a three-
month program and that it would include naltrexone pellets, a virtual platform, and a
Pellecome device. Pellecome did not use this information, and as Vinci-Rainis stated in
her declaration, it was “of no value to Pellecome for a number of reasons. First,
Pellecome FIT is an entirely different program, with entirely different elements. The
only similarity between the two programs is the use of naltrexone pellets. UnCraveRx
relies only on naltrexone, but Pellecome FIT includes it as just one of four elements the
provider may prescribe. Further, Pellecome FIT does not offer an app or counseling.
Therefore, the total program pricing for a weight loss program consisting of a naltrexone
pellet, a weight loss app, and counseling is of no value to Pellecome. Second, Pellecome
FIT is not sold as a program. Instead, Pellecome sells each of the four elements
separately, not per-program. Further, the elements are sold per unit: supplements are
priced between $9.50 and $56.25 per unit; peptides are priced between $3.00 and $259

                                             9
per unit; BHRT pellets are priced between $10.35 and $38.75 per pellet. Pellecome does
not yet have a price for naltrexone pellets. Finally, Pellecome does not set the retail
pricing of the Pellecome FIT products. The practitioners set their own prices.”
              With respect to the “‘business model,’” Vinci-Rainis stated she had not
seen the document Pellecome indicated contained this information until it was produced
in the course of litigation. Further, it would have been of no use to Pellecome if she had,
and much of the information included was either public information or readily
ascertainable research.
              As to the plans for launching UnCraveRx, Vinci-Rainis discussed a
meeting agenda Felix had sent her in advance of a call in May 2019. Pellecome did not
use any of the information in the agenda to launch or market Pellecome FIT, and much of
the information was not confidential, including physician training dates, a vendor with
whom Pellecome had a preexisting relationship, and trade show information.
              Finally, with regard to market size information, Vinci-Rainis discussed a
document Felix had sent Vinci-Rainis while she was preparing the term sheet.
Pellecome, stated Vinci-Rainis, did not use any of that information because it was “a
forecast for an entirely different product with a different pricing structure. Further, the
fact that there is a large market for weight loss programs is well known. It is not
confidential.” With respect to information on BioCorRx’s portal, Vinci-Rainis’s
declaration stated she had not seen this information prior to the litigation, and therefore it
had not been used in creating or marketing Pellecome’s product. Further, the information
appeared to be solely related to alcohol and drug addiction treatment, and was of no value
to Pellecome. Lastly, regarding an investor presentation, Pellecome did not use any
information therein.
              Regarding the differences between the programs, Vinci-Rainis described
Pellecome FIT in her declaration: “Rather than focus exclusively on weight loss,
Pellecome FIT is an overall beauty and wellness program. It consists of four

                                              10
components: BHRT, supplements, peptides, and naltrexone. BHRT is the base of
Pellecome FIT. BHRT is used to correct hormone imbalances, which would otherwise
impede weight loss and other health and wellness goals. BHRT is administered in pellet
form and is inserted using Pellecome’s device. Pellecome trains practitioners to prescribe
each patient BHRT as a part of the Pellecome FIT program. The supplements provide
additional benefits and are taken orally. The provider decides whether to prescribe
supplements. The peptides provide additional support and can be inserted with a syringe,
taken orally, or ingested through a nasal spray. The practitioner decides whether to
prescribe peptides. The naltrexone provides additional weight loss support and is
typically only prescribed to patients with substantial weight to lose. Naltrexone is
administered in pellet form and is inserted using Pellecome’s device.”
              Further, according to Vinci-Rainis, “[t]he only similarity between
Pellecome FIT and UnCraveRx is the use of naltrexone, which is not always prescribed
as a part of the Pellecome FIT program. In addition, UnCraveRx does not include
BHRT, peptides, or supplements. UnCraveRx provides an app, and Pellecome FIT does
not. Pellecome FIT provides an entirely different type of behavioral support from
UnCraveRx. UnCraveRx provides counseling and direct-to-patient behavioral support,
while Pellecome FIT does not. Instead, Pellecome FIT recommends that doctors advise
patients on diet and exercise, but unlike UnCraveRx, Pellecome FIT does not advise
patients directly regarding their behavior. It likewise does not offer or facilitate
counseling or coaching to patients.” Moreover, while Pellecome began selling BHRT
and peptides in October 2019 and supplements in March 2020, “Pellecome has not sold
any naltrexone pellets because Pellecome does not have a naltrexone formula or a
naltrexone supplier.” It intended to use a naltrexone pellet but had not done so at that
time. BioCorRx had not supplied Pellecome with any of its formulas and Pellecome had
not used any of BioCorRx’s formulas.

                                              11
              In its response, BioCorRx did not directly dispute Pellecome’s evidence
regarding what information Pellecome had used. Instead, it repeatedly stated that
Pellecome had “access” to proprietary information. Further, it did not dispute
Pellecome’s statements regarding the differences between the two companies’ weight-
loss programs, “to the extent this is what BioCorRx has been told by Pellecome.” It
claimed “Pellecome has not disclosed the full program” but offered no evidence that it
had requested further discovery.
              In one of its additional statements of fact, BioCorRx stated: “On July 22,
2019, texts are being exchanged between Melissa Vinci-Raines [sic] and Dr. Orbeck
regarding the proprietary formulation of the UnCraveRX Naltrexone pellet and the advice
of Wells pharmacy on how to circumvent the claim to the formulation.” That statement
does not, however, reflect the evidence. Only one text mentions any formulation. It
states: “Ok- I spoke to Jason and he says your lawyer should response [sic] and I want
you to here [sic] what Jason says he should write, so they can’t claim 2% col &
naltrexone. I think anyone that gets involved with them is crazy. They are bad news.”
BioCorRx offered no evidence that the “2% col & naltrexone” referred to is BioCorRx’s
confidential information. Accordingly, this does not create a triable issue of fact.
              Instead of focusing on the facts pertaining to the disputed issues in the MSJ,
BioCorRx’s additional material statements of fact focus on what appears to be its real
issue here – not that Pellecome used or benefitted from any of BioCorRx’s proprietary
information, but that Pellecome decided to start its own weight loss program once the
prospect of a deal between the two companies fell apart, regardless of how different it
was from BioCorRx’s program. They offered undisputed facts such as “[i]n the medical
industry, first to market garners a lot of strategic advantage and advantages in having the
total market share,” and “[p]erceived competition, even where there is no actual product
by the competing company, has a detrimental impact on market ownership.”

                                             12
These statements do not create material issues as to whether Pellecome commercially
exploited or financially benefitted from confidential information.
                On appeal, BioCorRx recites the basic facts of the case to argue there was a
triable issue of fact without precisely pointing out what the triable facts were in light of
the language and purpose of the NDA. It also fails to cite to statements in its separate
statement of material facts, which was the only evidence properly before the court.
                BioCorRx argues the trial court applied the wrong legal standard and
misinterpreted the contract, contending that the NDA must be interpreted in a manner that
any “use” of the confidential information establishes a breach of contract. But given that
we review summary adjudication de novo, whether the court erred on this point or was
inconsistent on another is a bit of red herring. The only thing that matters is whether the
motion was properly granted on grounds raised below, not the court’s specific reasoning.
(See Caro v. Smith (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 725, 735.)
                We begin with basic principles of contract interpretation. We must
interpret a contract so as to give effect to the mutual intent of the parties at the time the
contract was formed. (Civ. Code, § 1636.)2 “The language of a contract is to govern its
interpretation, if the language is clear and explicit, and does not involve an absurdity.”
(§ 1638.) Courts must also endeavor to give effect to every part of a contract, “if
reasonably practicable, each clause helping to interpret the other[s].” (§ 1641.) “Courts
will favor an interpretation that gives meaning to each word in a contract over an
interpretation that makes part of the writing redundant.” (Yahoo Inc. v. National Union
Fire Ins. Co., etc. (2022) 14 Cal.5th 58, 69.)
                In addition to the confidentiality clause cited above, the NDA included the
following recital:

2
    Subsequent statutory references are to the Civil Code unless otherwise stated.

                                              13
              “WHEREAS Parties acknowledge that each is already active in business
activities that are related. [BioCorRx] employs medications pharmaceutically formulated
and compounded for treating addiction. [BioCorRx] also employs other programs for
treating addi[c]tion. It is likely that [Pellecome] may also have significant knowledge of
the use of medications and programs to treat addiction. The information to be kept
confidential includes, but is not limited to, formulation, compounding procedure and
protocols, product pricing, specifics of business models, training/education materials, and
any other intellectual property held or controlled by the Parties. This agreement is not
intended to prevent the Parties from offering products and services used to treat
individuals using naltrexone should the parties not enter into a formal business
relationship. It is intended to ensure that neither Party commercially exploits and
financially benefits from employing Confidential Information, Formulation and Know
How garnered from the other as a result of the exchange of information contemplated
under this Agreement.” (Italics added.)
              BioCorRx relies on the following quotation from Sabetian v. Exxon Mobil
Corp. (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 1054, 1069: “‘The law has long distinguished between a
“covenant” which creates legal rights and obligations, and a “mere recital” which a party
inserts for his or her own reasons into a contractual instrument. Recitals are given limited
effect even as between the parties.’” This is true as far as it goes, and if there is an
arguable ambiguity between a covenant and a recital, the covenant should take
precedence, and a covenant should not be implied from a recital. But Sabetian also notes
“‘[i]f the operative words of a grant are doubtful, recourse may be had to its recitals to
assist the construction.’” (Ibid.) Indeed, this reflects section 1068, which states: “If the
operative words of a grant are doubtful, recourse may be had to its recitals to assist the
construction.” Further, as noted above, we must give effect to every part of a contract, “if
reasonably practicable, each clause helping to interpret the other[s].” (§ 1641.)

                                              14
              Here, the recital in question stated that the purpose of the NDA was not to
limit each company from offering products and services using naltrexone if they failed to
enter into a business relationship. “It is intended to ensure that neither Party
commercially exploits and financially benefits from employing Confidential Information,
Formulation and Know How garnered from the other as a result of the exchange of
information contemplated under this Agreement.” The trial court correctly interpreted
the contract according to its explicit terms – a breach not only included “use” of the
confidential information, but “use” was to be interpreted as commercial exploitation and
financial benefit as stated in the recital. This is not about whether weight loss programs
were completely excluded from the NDA, but whether any information allegedly used in
violation of the NDA must be subject to the express limitation in the recital. In order to
give meaning to each portion of the contract, this limitation must be included, and we
disagree with BioCorRx that the language creates an “ambiguity.”
              In sum, we find that Pellecome met its burden to demonstrate that it should
prevail as a matter of law. BioCorRx, however, failed to marshal the evidence to show
that material issues of fact existed as to whether Pellecome financially benefitted or
commercially exploited any confidential information. Accordingly, summary
adjudication on this point was properly granted.

Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
              BioCorRx’s other cause of action, as relevant here, was a breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, “[a] plaintiff claiming breach must allege
the defendant’s wrongful conduct was contrary to the contract’s purpose and the parties’
legitimate expectations.” (Cordoba Corp. v. City of Industry (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 145,
156.) The implied covenant, however, “does not impose substantive terms beyond those
of the contract.” (Ibid.) BioCorRx offers no argument that this claim can somehow
survive if summary adjudication on the breach of contract cause of action was properly

                                             15
granted. We therefore find no error in the trial court’s decision to grant summary
adjudication as to this claim.

Attorney Fees
               “‘The “experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional
services rendered in his court, and while his judgment is of course subject to review, it
will not be disturbed unless the appellate court is convinced that it is clearly wrong”—
meaning that it abused its discretion.’” (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th
1084, 1095.)
               BioCorRx argues the trial court abused its discretion by awarding
Pellecome $222,942.55 in attorney fees,3 contending the fees were “unreasonable and
wildly inflated.” Pellecome originally requested $321,898.50, but the trial court
disallowed all fees incurred after the date summary adjudication was granted, with the
exception of fees incurred to prepare the attorney fee motion.
               BioCorRx’s argument on the attorney fee motion is singularly unhelpful,
claiming the hourly rates allowed were “unsupported and unreasonably high” without
explaining why. We reject this argument as lacking both factual and legal support.
(Schubert v. Reynolds (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 100, 108-109.) BioCorRx also lists billing
entries it believed were “unreasonable and excessive” without stating the reasons for that
assertion beyond its own conclusory statement that these were “small tasks.” It is not our
place, as the United States Supreme Court has stated, to micromanage attorney fee
awards, and we decline to perform the item by item recalculation BioCorRx seeks here.
(Fox v. Vice (2011) 563 U.S. 826, 838.) The trial court disagreed with BioCorRx’s
assertions, and it has not established a manifest abuse of discretion.

3
 Without case authority, BioCorRx argues that because Pellecome filed a separate
motion for costs, it was not permitted to file a separate attorney fee motion. This
contention is rejected.

                                             16
                                                III
                                       DISPOSITION
              The judgment is affirmed. The request for judicial notice is denied.
Pellecome is entitled to its costs on appeal.

                                                      MOORE, ACTING P. J.

WE CONCUR:

GOETHALS, J.

DELANEY, J.

                                                17