Judge: Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case: 23STCV23426, Date: 2024-03-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV23426    Hearing Date: March 25, 2024    Dept: 58

Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki

Department 58

Hearing Date:              March 25, 2024

Case Name:                 NewNew, Inc. v. Williams

Case No.:                    23STCV23426

Matter:                        Default Judgment prove-up

Moving Party:             Plaintiff NewNew Inc.

Responding Party:      Unopposed

Tentative Ruling:      The request for default judgment is granted in a reduced amount upon the filing of a dismissal of Does 1-100.

            The First Amended Complaint alleges causes of action for (1.) breach of contract, (2.) attempted extortion, (3.) conversion, (4.) specific performance, and (5.) violation of Penal Code section 502.   

            On January 5, 2024, the Court entered default against Defendant Jennifer Willaims. Does 1-100 have not been dismissed.

            Plaintiff now moves for default judgment against Defendant Williams. The request for entry of default judgment is granted in a reduced amount upon the filing of a dismissal of Does 1-100.

Discussion

            Plaintiff seeks default judgment in the form of injunctive relief and includes a request for costs in the amount of $2,495.35 and $56,991.70 in attorney fees.

            First, the Court declines to enter default judgment as to one party where other parties remain. (Nicholson v. Henderson (1944) 25 Cal.2d 375, 378 [“[A]s a general rule there can be only one final judgment in a single action.”].) Thus, default judgment cannot be granted until Plaintiff dismisses Does 1-100.

Additionally, Plaintiff requests the following injunctive relief:

“A permanent injunction is hereby entered against Williams, under which (i) Williams is ordered to return to NewNew the laptop that NewNew issued to her, as well as all NewNew information, documents, and data, within fourteen (14) days; (ii) Williams is enjoined from further copying, deleting, or altering any of NewNew’s company information, including without limitation work product that Williams created for NewNew pursuant to any contract with NewNew, as well as information contained on or accessible through the NewNew laptop in Williams’s possession; (iii) Williams shall hold confidential all Confidential Information and Third Party Information as defined in the CIIAA, including without limitation NewNew’s trade secrets; (iv) Williams is enjoined from disclosing any of NewNew’s confidential or proprietary data and/or records to the media or any other third parties outside of NewNew; and (v) Williams is enjoined from contacting any current or former NewNew officers, directors, employees, contractors, investors, or clients for the purpose of communicating false and/or misleading information about NewNew or its officers, directors, employees, contractors, investors, and/or clients.” (Proposed Judgment)

            The injunctive relief is appropriate for the causes of action alleged. However, the request to enjoin Williams “from contacting any current or former NewNew officers, directors, employees, contractors, investors, or clients for the purpose of communicating false and/or misleading information about NewNew or its officers, directors, employees, contractors, investors, and/or clients” is vague and overboard, and a potential prior restraint on speech. The Court strikes this portion of the request for permanent injunctive relief.

Additionally, in seeking attorney fees, Plaintiff requests fees pursuant to Civil Code section 1717. Plaintiff seeks fees in the amount of $56,991.70 based on the lodestar method for time reasonably incurred. (Reynolds Decl., ¶ 5.) However, Plaintiff fails to identify the specific contractual provision that permits attorney fees. (Diarra Decl., ¶ 12; LASC 3.207.) Further, the requested attorney fees are, on their face, excessive and unreasonable.

Moreover, it is not clear on what basis Plaintiff is entitled to recover the $3,746.50 paid to Setec Investigations for the forensic analysis and memorandum provided. The Court will order reduced attorney fees in the amount $5,790.

Further, Plaintiff has not substantiated the $473.75 in “Law Firm Costs” requested. (CIV-100 ¶ 7.)

Accordingly, the request for entry of default judgment is granted in accordance with the order above upon the filing of a dismissal of Does 1-100.