Opinion
G053713
07-25-2018
SYNETCOM DIGITAL, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. KDC, INC., Defendant and Respondent.
Law Office of Rodney W. Wickers, Rodney W. Wickers, Christina M. Wickers, and Alexandra L. Admans for Plaintiff and Appellant. Cummins & White, James R. Wakefield, Iman Reza, and Samantha N. Lamm for Defendant and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2013-00692328) OPINION Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, David R. Chaffee, Judge. Reversed. Law Office of Rodney W. Wickers, Rodney W. Wickers, Christina M. Wickers, and Alexandra L. Admans for Plaintiff and Appellant. Cummins & White, James R. Wakefield, Iman Reza, and Samantha N. Lamm for Defendant and Respondent.
This appeal concerns attorney fees awarded to KDC, Inc., (KDC) after prevailing in a breach of contract/trade secret violation lawsuit brought by its subcontractor Synetcom Digital Inc. (Synetcom), and prevailing on its cross-complaint against Synetcom. In a companion appeal, Synetcom Digital Inc. v. KDC, Inc. (July 25, 2018, G053383) [nonpub opn.], we considered Synetcom's challenges to nonsuit rulings that resulted in the eventual elimination of all causes of action and a favorable directed verdict ruling on KDC's cross-complaint. We concluded one of Synetcom's challenges had merit and reversed the nonsuit ruling and directed verdict entered on contract-based claims (found in both the complaint and cross-complaint). (Ibid.)
KDC, Inc., doing business as (dba) KDC Systems, Inc., dba Dynalectric will be referred to collectively and in the singular as KDC. --------
In this appeal, Synetcom argues the court erred in granting KDC's motion for $521,376 in attorney fees and costs as the prevailing party on the contract-based claims. It also maintains the award must be reduced because the trial court failed to take into account attorney fees incurred litigating claims not based in contract. Because we must reverse the judgment regarding the contract-based claims, KDC is no longer the prevailing party on those claims entitled to fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1717. For this reason, we must also reverse the order awarding attorney fees and costs to KDC. An order awarding fees and costs "falls with a reversal of the judgment on which it is based. [Citation.]" (Merced County Taxpayers' Assn. v. Cardella (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 396, 402 [reversal of fees and costs awarded]; Allen v. Smith (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1284-1285 [reversal of attorney fees awarded under Code of Civil Procedure § 1717].)
DISPOSITION
The postjudgment order awarding attorney fees and costs is reversed. In the interests of justice, the parties will bear their own costs on this appeal.
O'LEARY, P. J. WE CONCUR: BEDSWORTH, J. THOMPSON, J.