Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District 

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

 

This is a theft of trade secrets case.  Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Travel Entertainment and Marketing LLC (“TEAM”) provides event planning services primarily for college fraternities and sororities, as well as for other college student organizations.  Cross-Defendant Michael Olivas is the sole owner of TEAM.   

From August 2016 until March 2020, Defendant and Cross-Complainant Brian Delino worked for TEAM as a sales representative.  In connection with his employment with TEAM, Delino was given access to TEAM’s proprietary and/or confidential information, such as TEAM’s client lists, vendor lists, and historical pricing information. The proprietary and/or confidential nature of this information was expressly set forth in the employment agreement between TEAM and Delino.  Delino expressly agreed that this information was not to be shared with anyone or to be used for any purpose outside of TEAM’s daily business operations.  

In late 2019, Delino was having TEAM’s clients pay him directly for events.  Specifically, when a TEAM client would contact Delino to book an event with TEAM, Delino would set up the event for the client and then divert the client funds directly to his personal account.   

In or around March 2020, Delino started his own company selling events to college fraternities.  Delino operates the new company under the name Big Daddy Formals.  Delino and Big Daddy Formals are in possession of TEAM’s current, former and prospective client lists, vendor lists, and historical price data.  They are using the stolen, confidential information to contact TEAM’s clients and lure them away from TEAM.   

Delino uses a platform called “gmass” to send marketing “blasts” to potential customers, and it appears that Delino is sending these “blasts” using TEAM’s customer lists.  Delino would also use TEAM’s customer lists to contact TEAM customers and tell them that TEAM is “out of business.”  

TEAM sued Delino and his company, BigDaddyFormals (collectively “Defendants”), for (1) fraud by concealment, (2) conversion, (3) intentional interference with contractual relations, (4) intentional interference with prospective economic relations, and (5) violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.   

Delino countersued TEAM and Olivas, alleging they interfered with the business of BigDaddyFormals, and violated various Labor Code provisions.  The Cross-Complaint asserts claims for (1) failure to pay minimum wage, (2) failure to provide accurate wage statements, (3) failure to pay wages upon termination, (4) failure to pay overtime, (5) failure to provide rest periods, (6) failure to provide meal periods, (7) tortious interference with contract, (8) tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, and (9) violation of Bus. & Prof Code § 17200.   

TEAM filed a motion for terminating sanctions which this Court granted on April 22, 2024.  The Court struck Defendants’ answer and cross-complaint.   

This hearing is on TEAM’s request for entry of default judgment pursuant to the April 22 Order.  TEAM seeks (1) $1,052,986.11 in damages jointly and severally against both Defendants; (2) $45,901.50 in damages solely against Delino and (3) $2,910 in damages solely against Big Daddy Formals, LLC.  

DISCUSSION 

Since the Court granted terminating sanctions, the only issue to decide in this request for default judgment is the amount of damages owed to TEAM.  The effect of the terminating sanctions and the striking of Defendants’ answer is that Defendants admitted the fact allegations of the Complaint. 

TEAM requests $925,706 in damages resulting from Defendants’ interference conduct.  The Court concludes the request is supported by the expert report of Michael Corkey, a chartered financial analyst, with expertise in financial modeling.  To arrive at this damages amount, Corkey first compiled a list of the clients TEAM believes were lost due to the actions of the Defendants (the “Lost Clients”).  (Ex. 2 to Bendel Decl.)  Then, Corkey evaluated the annual historical transactions with “Lost Clients”, which revealed that several large clients, who had been consistent repeat customers, ceased all business dealings with TEAM post-2020, coinciding with Delino’s departure.  (Id.)  Corkey next determined the annual cash flows based on the historical transactions.  (Id.)  Corkey then created a “Lost Profits Model” based on the foregoing information, which arrived at the amount of damages caused by Defendants’ wrongdoing.  (Id.)  The model took into account two variables -- the recovery rate of the industry after COVID and the probability of 2019 customers becoming return customers.  (Id.) 

TEAM next requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $115,730.  In the absence of an express agreement or statute, each party to a lawsuit is responsible for its own attorneys’ fees.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1021.)¿ TEAM argues that it is entitled to attorneys’ fees here because it brought a claim under Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, the unfair competition law (“UCL”).  But attorney fees are not recoverable under the UCL. (People ex rel. City of Santa Monica v. Gabriel (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 882, 889; see also Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1134, 1148¿(“attorney fees … are not available under the UCL …¿.”);¿Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, 179¿(“Prevailing plaintiffs are generally limited to injunctive relief and restitution. [Citations.]¿ Plaintiffs may not receive … attorney fees.”);¿Walker v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1158, 1179¿(“The unfair competition law does not provide for attorney fees … .”);¿California Service Station etc. Assn. v. Union Oil Co. (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 44, 58 (“the unfair competition statutes … do not authorize attorney fees.”); Cruz v. PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 303, 317¿(prevailing plaintiffs on a UCL claim are limited to injunctive relief and restitution).)   

TEAM also requests costs in the amount of $11,550.11.  The costs include (1) filing fees and motion fees of $1,499.90, (2) jury fees of $150.00, (3) deposition costs of $3,349.40, (4) service of process fees of $1,217.75, (5) witness fees of $4,500 and (6) electronic filing fees of $833.06.  (Bendel Decl. ¶3.)  Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5(a)(1), (a)(3), (a)(4) allows for recovery of filing, motion, jury and service fees and deposition costs.  As to witness fees, TEAM does not identify who the witness is; to the extent TEAM is seeking fees paid to its expert (Mr. Corkey), that is expressly disallowed under § 1033.5(b)(1) as the expert was not ordered by the Court.  Accordingly, the Court will only allow $7,050.11 in costs.         

Next, TEAM requests $23,254 in damages associated with Delino’s fraud in collecting directly from TEAM’s clients while Delino was working with TEAM.  The amount is based on the declaration of Michael Olivas who can only account for $2,354 in damages, which he estimates (based on no reasonable analysis) is only 10% of the amount of money Delino stole from TEAM.  (Delino Decl. ¶6.)  Accordingly, the Court will only award $2,354 in damages for Delino’s theft.   

TEAM also requests $19,737.50 in anti-SLAPP fees and $5,820 in monetary sanctions previously awarded by this Court.  (Ex. 4 to Bendel Decl.; 3/8/2024 Minute Order.)  As the fees/sanctions were previously awarded by the Court, the Court will include them in the judgment.    

CONCLUSION 

 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s request for entry of Court judgment.   The Court awards $932,756.11 jointly and severally against Delino and Big Daddy Formals, LLC, $25,001.50 in damages against Delino individually, and $2,910 against Big Daddy Formals, LLC. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED:   September 23, 2024 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court