Opinion
B198647
2-1-2008
NYGÅRD, INC., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. TIMO UUSI-KERTTULA et al., Defendants and Respondents.
Seyfarth Shaw, Todd C. Hunt, and Daniel Hargis for Plaintiffs and Appellants. No appearance for Defendants and Respondents.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
This appeal is a companion to Nygård, Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula (Feb. 1, 2008) B194088 (the companion appeal). In the companion appeal, plaintiffs Nygård, Inc. and Nygård International Partnership (collectively, the company or plaintiffs) appealed an order granting an "anti-SLAPP motion" filed by defendants Timo Uusi-Kerttula (Timo), Katso Magazine (Katso), and A-Lehdet (collectively, defendants). In the present appeal, plaintiffs appeal a subsequent order awarding defendants $45,000 in attorney fees and costs. We find no error, and we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Timo is a former employee of the company. He ceased working for the company in 2005. Subsequently, he gave an interview to Katso, then owned by defendant A-Lehdet, about his experience with the company. Katso published an article based on the interview in June 2005.
In October 2005, the company filed a complaint against Timo, Katso, and A-Lehdet alleging that the interview and the article gave rise to causes of action for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional interference with contract, breach of the duty of loyalty, and defamation. Defendants filed a special motion to strike all causes of action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 and, on July 19, 2006, the court granted the motion.
Defendants filed a motion for attorney fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, subdivision (c), on September 25, 2006. The court granted the motion in part, awarding defendants fees of $45,000.
The court served the parties with a copy of the minute order on October 31, 2006, and defendants served notice of ruling on March 1, 2007. Plaintiffs filed the present appeal on April 25, 2007.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs expressly make the present appeal "contingent upon" the "resolution of the underlying merits appeal"—that is, plaintiffs contend that if we reverse the underlying order in whole or in part, we should also reverse or vacate the trial courts fee ruling. Plaintiffs do not, however, make any argument in support of reversing the attorney fee award in the event that the underlying order is affirmed. Any such argument therefore is waived. (Niko v. Foreman (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 344, 368 ["`An appellate brief "should contain a legal argument with citation of authorities on the points made. If none is furnished on a particular point, the court may treat it as waived, and pass it without consideration." [Citation.] [Citation.]"]; Osornio v. Weingarten (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 304, 316, fn. 7 ["`Issues do not have a life of their own: if they are not raised or supported by argument or citation to authority, we consider the issues waived."].) Accordingly, because in the companion case we have affirmed the order granting the anti-SLAPP motion, we also affirm the award of attorney fees.
DISPOSITION
The order awarding attorney fees is affirmed. Respondents shall recover their costs on appeal.
We concur:
EPSTEIN, P. J.
MANELLA, J.