NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 11 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MANUFACTURING AUTOMATION Nos. 19-55489
AND SOFTWARE SYSTEMS, INC., 19-55766
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.
2:16-cv-08962-CAS-KS
v.
KRISTOPHER HUGHES; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants-Appellees.
MANUFACTURING AUTOMATION No. 19-55691
AND SOFTWARE SYSTEMS, INC.,
D.C. No.
Plaintiff-Appellee, 2:16-cv-08962-CAS-KS
v.
KRISTOPHER HUGHES; et al.,
Defendants-Appellants,
and
PCVUE, INC.; EDWARD NUGENT,
Defendants.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Page 2 of 5
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 10, 2020
Pasadena, California
Before: WATFORD, THAPAR,** and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.
Manufacturing Automation & Software Systems, Inc. (MASS, Inc.) sued
two former employees, Kristopher Hughes and James Huysentruyt, along with
other defendants, for allegedly stealing proprietary information to start a new,
competing business. After trial, a jury returned a verdict for defendants on some
claims and partly in MASS, Inc.’s favor on other claims, including claims for
misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of contract. After the parties
exchanged proposed judgments and submitted them to the district court, the court
entered judgment for defendants on all claims. MASS, Inc. appeals from the
judgment as well as a subsequent order declining to award MASS, Inc. attorney’s
fees and costs. Huysentruyt cross-appeals from the district court’s order denying
his “motion for attorney’s fees, without prejudice to Huysentruyt’s making a
showing of fees expended only in defending the breach of contract claim.” We
affirm.
**
The Honorable Amul R. Thapar, United States Circuit Judge for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
Page 3 of 5
1. The district court permissibly exercised its discretion by entering
judgment for defendants. See Zhang v. American Gem Seafoods, Inc., 339 F.3d
1020, 1038 (9th Cir. 2003). With the exception of the claim for misappropriation
of trade secrets, each of the claims on which MASS, Inc. ostensibly prevailed
required proof of damages as an essential element of the claim. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 1030(c)(4)(A)(i)(I) and (g) (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act); Cal. Penal Code
§ 502(e)(1) (California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act);
Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc., 15 Cal. 4th 951, 974 (1997) (fraud);
Youst v. Longo, 43 Cal. 3d 64, 71 (1987) (interference with prospective economic
advantage); Richman v. Hartley, 224 Cal. App. 4th 1182, 1186 (2014) (breach of
contract); Teselle v. McLoughlin, 173 Cal. App. 4th 156, 179 (2009) (accounting);
Mosier v. Southern California Physicians Insurance Exchange, 63 Cal. App. 4th
1022, 1044 (1998) (breach of fiduciary duty). On each of these claims, however,
the jury awarded zero damages. Because MASS, Inc. failed to prove an essential
element of these claims, the district court properly entered judgment for
defendants.
With respect to the claim for misappropriation of trade secrets, the jury also
awarded zero damages. Even though it failed to prove damages (or unjust
enrichment), MASS, Inc. could have prevailed on this claim by proving its
entitlement to a reasonable royalty, see Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.3(b), or injunctive
Page 4 of 5
relief. It failed to do so. The district court properly refused to allow MASS, Inc. to
submit evidence as to its entitlement to either a reasonable royalty or a permanent
injunction, given that MASS, Inc. never filed a motion seeking either form of
relief. The first point at which MASS, Inc. indicated its intent to seek equitable
relief was in its briefing on the form of the proposed judgment, and even then it
made no showing in support of any such relief. At that point, the trial had
concluded, and nothing in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure required the court
to reopen proceedings so that additional evidence could be introduced.
Accordingly, the district court properly entered judgment for defendants on this
claim as well.
Because MASS, Inc. recovered nothing on any of its claims, the district
court permissibly deemed defendants the prevailing parties for purposes of
awarding attorney’s fees and costs. See Hsu v. Abbara, 9 Cal. 4th 863, 875–76
(1995).
2. As to Huysentruyt’s cross-appeal, the district court appropriately
exercised its discretion in denying Huysentruyt’s motion for attorney’s fees based
on his failure to apportion fees related to the breach-of-contract claim. See El
Escorial Owners’ Association v. DLC Plastering, Inc., 154 Cal. App. 4th 1337,
1365 (2007). Although Huysentruyt asserts that it was impossible to apportion
fees, defending against the fifteen other claims in the case surely required counsel
Page 5 of 5
to spend at least some additional time beyond what was required to defend against
the breach-of-contract claim.
When Huysentruyt was offered an opportunity to apportion fees in the
district court, he declined to do so. Accordingly, there is no need to remand for
further proceedings with respect to the issue of attorney’s fees.
MASS, Inc.’s July 29, 2020, motion for judicial notice is DENIED.
AFFIRMED.