The True Blue Tattoo Parlor and Body Piercing Parlor in Austin, Texas. 2014-04-19. Carol M. Highsmith, photographer. Library of Congress. [Note: This tattoo and body piercing parlor has no connection whatsoever to the case summarized below, other than the word "tattoo". The photo is included simply to add a little color to our grey legal world.]
Statement Of Decision Properly Found Objective/Subjective Bad Faith.
In Vescovi v. Clark, Case No. G052716 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 7, 2017) (unpublished), plaintiff sued a former independent contractor machinist for misappropriation of trade secrets involving a tattoo machine. Defendant prevailed and was awarded $50,000 in attorney's fees (out of a requested $57,400) under Civil Code section 3426.4. The fee award was affirmed after defendant provided a detailed statement of decision by the trial judge. Objectiveness speciousness was shown by these facts: plaintiff's failure to identify the trade secret; failure to produce an alleged videotape showing defendant's confession to wrongdoing; plaintiff's unreasonable settlement demands; and failure to produce any evidence of damages. Subjective bad faith was demonstrated by plaintiff wanting a settlement non-compete arrangement putting defendant out of business, never producing trade secret specification, making threats to defendant's family, and sending intimidating emails to defendant's current boss. Defendant also likely will be awarded fees for winning on appeal. Presiding Justice O'Leary authored the 4/3 DCA opinion in this one.