Reeves v. Hanlon 2/20/03 CA2/4

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » Court of Appeal » 2003 » Reeves v. Hanlon 2/20/03 CA2/4

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: B151460

Case Date: 02/20/2003

Preview:Filed 2/20/03

CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

ROBERT L. REEVES et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. DANIEL P. HANLON et al., Defendants and Appellants.

B151460 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GC023679)

APPEAL from judgment and orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jan A. Pluim, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. Dwyer, Daly, Brotzen & Bruno, Toni Rae Bruno and Marlin D. Wall for Defendants and Appellants. Arter & Hadden, David Gurnick, Sue Bendavid-Arbiv; Robert L. Reeves & Associates, Robert L. Reeves, Robert J. DuPont and Richard M. Wilner for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

to California Rules of Court, rules 976(b) and 976.1, this opinion is certified for partial publication. The portions to be published are the initial paragraph on page 2, the Statement of the Case parts A, B, D and E, the first paragraph of the Discussion (page 10) and the portions of part A of the Discussion beginning on page 10 and ending on page 12, part A.1.c. (at pages 14 to 18), and the Disposition.

*Pursuant

Appellants Daniel P. Hanlon, Colin T. Greene, and Hanlon & Greene, a professional corporation (H&G), challenge a judgment in favor of respondents Robert L. Reeves and the law offices of Robert L. Reeves & Associates, a professional corporation (RLRA), as well as the cost award and the trial court's stay of a judgment based on an arbitration award in favor of appellants and against respondents. We affirm the judgment and stay. Regarding the cost award, we affirm in part and reverse in part. STATEMENT OF THE CASE A. Operative Complaints Reeves initiated this action against Hanlon, Greene, and H&G on August 3, 1999. Thereafter, Hanlon and H&G began a separate action against respondents on August 6, 1999. The actions were consolidated, and Greene filed a separate cross-complaint against respondents in the consolidated actions on February 14, 2000. On February 1, 2000, respondents filed their second amended complaint, which alleged the following facts: Reeves's law firm employed Hanlon and Greene as attorneys. In 1998, Reeves entered into an agreement with Hanlon that entitled Hanlon to earn an equity position in a law firm to be called "Reeves and Hanlon." In 1999, Hanlon and Greene abruptly resigned from their positions with Reeves and Hanlon, and they improperly persuaded respondents' employees to join H&G, solicited respondents' clients to obtain services from H&G, misappropriated respondents' trade secrets, destroyed computer files, and withheld respondents' property, including a car. The second amended complaint asserted 14 claims, including intentional interference with contractual relationships, interference with prospective business opportunity, conspiracy to interfere with prospective business opportunity, misappropriation of confidential information and violation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA) (Civ. Code,

Download Reeves v. Hanlon 2/20/03 CA2/4.pdf