Trueblue, Inc. v. Timothy Dyn , 421 F. App'x 739 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             MAR 15 2011
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    TRUEBLUE, INC., a Washington                     No. 09-36146
    corporation,
    D.C. No. 3:09-cv-05328-BHS
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.                                        MEMORANDUM *
    TIMOTHY P. DYN, an individual,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Washington
    Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted March 9, 2011
    Seattle, Washington
    Before: McKEOWN, FISHER and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    The district court awarded fees to defendant Timothy Dyn after plaintiff
    TrueBlue, Inc. voluntarily dismissed its complaint. We affirm.
    1. The district court did not err in concluding that TrueBlue sought to
    enforce the Non-Competition Agreement in this action. TrueBlue’s claims center
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    on breach of the Non-Competition Agreement. Even if TrueBlue also sought in
    part to recover benefits paid under the Employment Agreement and Release of
    Claims, that claim was intertwined with and dependent on the claim for breach of
    the Non-Competition Agreement. Thus, all of TrueBlue’s claims were properly
    considered together for purposes of awarding fees. See Crown Custom Homes,
    Inc. v. Sabatino, 
    18 So. 3d 738
    , 740 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009).
    Because TrueBlue sued under the Non-Competition Agreement, the district
    court properly applied Florida law, which governs the availability of fees under
    that contract. The choice of law provision in the Release of Claims does not alter
    the parties’ earlier agreement that the Non-Competition Agreement is governed by
    “the law of the State in which [Dyn] last worked for TrueBlue.”
    2. The district court correctly concluded that Dyn was the prevailing party
    and was entitled to fees after TrueBlue’s voluntary dismissal. See Alhambra
    Homeowners Ass’n v. Asad, 
    943 So. 2d 316
    , 318-20 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006).
    AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-36146

Citation Numbers: 421 F. App'x 739

Judges: Fisher, Gould, McKEOWN

Filed Date: 3/15/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023