IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF （州上诉法院）.PDFVIP

Filed 5/13/14 Aerotek. v. The Johnson Group Staffing CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) AEROTEK, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, C070832 v. (Super. Ct. No. 34200700540602CUBTGDS) THE JOHNSON GROUP STAFFING COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents; PORTER SCOTT, Real Party in Interest and Respondent. This court affirmed a judgment in favor of defendants, The Johnson Group Staffing Company, Inc. (the Johnson Group) and Michael Ponce, in Aerotek, Inc. v. The Johnson Group Staffing Company, Inc., et al. (July 30, 2013, C067652) [nonpub. opn.] (Aerotek I). We concluded the defendants did not violate the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA) (Civ. Code, § 3426 et seq.)1 by improperly announcing Ponce’s new 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Civil Code. 1 employment with the Johnson Group to clients of Ponce’s former employer, Aerotek Inc. (Aerotek I , supra, C067652.) While the appeal in Aerotek I was pending, the trial court awarded $735,781.27 in attorney fees to defendants under section 3426.4. Section 3426.4 provides attorney fees to the prevailing party in a UTSA action “[i]f a clai