Judge Matthew C. Braner, Case Number: 37-2021-00031375-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-05-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2021-00031375-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-05-24 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 24, 2024

05/24/2024 03:00:00 PM C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Breach of Contract/Warranty Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2021-00031375-CU-BC-CTL MATRIARCH DESIGN LLC VS WEAR [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendants Bart Wear and Linda Wear's motions for new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict are DENIED.

Preliminarily, Defendants argue the JNOV should be granted because Plaintiff Matriarch Design LLC failed to file an opposition. But in every material respect, Defendants' JNOV is identical to their motion for new trial. The court regards Plaintiff's single Opposition as a response to both. The Court also rejects Plaintiff's argument Defendants' motions are untimely. The fifteenth day following service of the notice fell on a Sunday; as such, Defendants timely filed their motions on the following Monday.

In this breach of contract case, Plaintiff alleged Defendants stole her proposed interior designs for Defendants' San Diego beach house. On January 14, 2024, the jury returned with a verdict finding Defendant Linda Wear breached the contract and awarded damages in the amount of $75,000. The jury also found Defendant Bart Wear did not breach the contract.

In general, a new trial may only be granted in California if a miscarriage of justice occurred. (Code Civ.

Proc., � 657; Cal. Const., art. VI, � 13; Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 579; Maher v. Saad (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1317, 1324.) On a motion for new trial, the trial court is charged with reviewing the record and weighing the evidence admitted at trial to determine whether the factfinder, 'clearly should have reached a different verdict or decision.' (Code Civ. Proc., � 657.) In reviewing a motion for new trial, the court must be guided by a presumption in favor of the correctness of the verdict and proceedings supporting it. (Ryan v. Crown Castle NG Networks, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 775, 785.) If the motion is based on an asserted error of law, a new trial cannot be granted unless the error was prejudicial. (Cal. Const., art. VI, � 13.) If it clearly appears the error could not have affected the result of the trial, the court is bound to deny the motion. (Bristow v. Ferguson (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 823, 826.) Defendants advance three arguments in support of their motions: 1) the evidence adduced does not support the $75,000 award; 2) Plaintiff's theory of damages is not recoverable under the contract, and 3) under the Secondary Evidence rule, the court erred by admitting company owner Ms. Logan (nee Goldwasser')s oral testimony to explain the basis for her damages claim.

Defendants' arguments are without merit, as they misconstrue the substance of Plaintiff's damage claim.

Plaintiff is an interior decorator; her aesthetic is thus her service. The contract was her preliminary proposal, for her ideas, which she claimed Defendants appropriated. This contract was not for agreed-upon final specifications. (See Contract, � B.) Had Plaintiff's proposal been approved, her damages would have been calculable based on Defendants' 'authorization of each [approved] item in Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3125079 70 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: MATRIARCH DESIGN LLC VS WEAR [IMAGED] 37-2021-00031375-CU-BC-CTL the form of a payment equal to 50% of the total price.' (Contract, � B.3.) But in this case, because Defendants rejected Plaintiff's proposal, no agreement regarding final specifications was ever reached.

Nevertheless, the Proposal Contract explicitly protected Plaintiff against the theft of her ideas. (Contract, C.I.) Plaintiff therefore predicated her claim for damages on her proposal, or in other words on her ideas that technically never came to fruition. 'Generally, ideas are not the property of anyone and may be used by all absent a contract to pay for them.' (Minniear v. Tors (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 495, 501.) 'Even though an idea is not property subject to exclusive ownership, its disclosure may be of substantial benefit to the person to whom it is disclosed [and] Plaintiffs may therefore have a cause of action in contract for disclosing an idea to a defendant that uses that idea without compensation.' (Norman v. Ross (2024) 320 Cal.Rptr.3d 384, 409.) Idea theft is most commonly alleged as a claim for breach of an express or implied contract under the theory the disclosure and submission of an idea 'can be consideration for a promise to pay compensation.' (Spinner v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.

(2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 172, 184.) Plaintiff's claim sounds in contract because her Proposal Agreement explicitly protects against the theft of her ideas. (Contract, C.I.) Importantly, however, the contract provides no guidance on calculating damages in the event of misappropriation. 'The measure of damages in an idea submission case is the reasonable value of the ideas used by the defendant which had been submitted by the plaintiff.' (Desny v. Wilder (1956) 46 Cal.2d 715, 744.) 'While this standard is easy to cite, it leaves many unanswered questions.' (Glen L. Kulik, The Idea Submission Case: When Is an Idea Protected Under California Law? (1998) 32 Beverly Hills B. Ass'n J. 99, 108.) Consequently, the trier of fact is allowed considerable flexibility in determining damages upon finding unauthorized use.

In Donahue v. United Artists Corp., the court rejected Defendants' argument the fact finder relied on a theory for which no evidence was produced: 'The instant case, says defendant, 'was not tried on any theory of value of use but on the market value of the property.' . . . [P]ertinent here, and deemed controlling, is the following from Universal Pictures Co. v. Harold Lloyd Corporation, 162 F.2d 354, 369 (9th Cir.) quoting a decision of the United States Supreme Court: 'Value for exchange is not the only value known to the law of damages. There are times when heed must be given to value for use, if reparation is to be adequate. * * * The market test failing, there must be reference to the values inherent in the thing itself, whether for use or for exchange.' (Donahue v. United Artists Corp. (1969) 2 Cal.App.3d 794, 804-05.) The Donohue court also found that upon a finding of idea theft, any uncertainty in determining the amount of damages should be borne by the wrongdoer: 'The most elementary conceptions of justice and public policy require that the wrongdoer shall bear the risk of the uncertainty which his own wrong has created. * * * 'The constant tendency of the courts is to find some way in which damages can be awarded where a wrong has been done.

Difficulty of ascertainment is no longer confused with right of recovery' for a proven invasion of the plaintiff's rights. (Cases cited.)'' (Id. at p. 804.) In this case, Plaintiff pegged this elusive concept of her idea-theft damages to the total commissions she would have received but for Defendants misappropriations. This explains her answer to Defendants' question she was still claiming this total amount despite Defendants' rejection of some of her proposed furnishings before they rejected her entire proposal. Defendant faults the court for allowing Plaintiff to testify to the total value, claiming her testimony violated the secondary evidence rule. But the misappropriation was of Plaintiff's ideas, and she presented her ideas to Defendants by way of pictures, swatches, drawings, architectural schematics, and her own explications. Therefore, any pricing information that was a part of this ensemble does not constitute a separate writing. Moreover, the pricing information was within Plaintiff's personal knowledge. Defendants cross-examined Plaintiff regarding the bases for her damage claim. Considering Plaintiff obtained less than she sought from the jury, this cross-examination was effective.

Because no definitive method exists to calculate damages for theft of ideas, no strict limitations can be Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3125079 70 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: MATRIARCH DESIGN LLC VS WEAR [IMAGED] 37-2021-00031375-CU-BC-CTL imposed on the fact finder. In this case, the jury clearly rejected Plaintiff's proposed value. The evidence was at odds regarding the degree Defendants misappropriated Plaintiff's ideas, what items they improperly used without compensation, and who was responsible for the theft. This disputed evidence related to value, and it was clear that Defendants did not use some of the furnishings and appurtenances Plaintiff had proposed. Based on the totality of the evidence, it was well within the jury's collective prerogative to whittle down Plaintiff's total amount to the awarded $75,000 amount.

Accordingly, Defendants' motions are denied.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3125079 70