Rimkus Consulting Group Inc. v. Cammarata - Ballard Spahr LLP

Case 4:07-cv-00405 Document 450 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/10 Page 100 of 139
that both it and Bell and Cammarata argued Texas (as well as Louisiana) law in the briefs
they filed on the Bell and Cammarata motion for summary judgment, the Louisiana court
“could not evaluate the issues in dispute under Texas law.” (Id.).
Claim preclusion applies to bar in a subsequent suit all “claims that were or could
have been litigated in a previous lawsuit.” Horacek v. Watson, 06-210, p. 3 (La. App. 3 Cir.
7/5/06); 934 So. 2d 908, 910 (quoting Walker v. Howell, 04-246, p.2 (La. App. 3 Cir.
12/15/04); 896 So. 2d 110, 112). Under Louisiana law, a defendant is required to “assert in
a reconventional demand all causes of action that he may have against the plaintiff that arise
out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the principal action.” LA.
CODE CIV. PROC. art. 1061(B). Rimkus asserted its claims for breach of the noncompetition
and nonsolicitation covenants in its reconventional demands. The Louisiana court ruled that,
despite the Texas forum-selection and choice-of-law provision in the Employment
Agreement, Louisiana law applied to invalidate the covenants. Louisiana law prevented
Rimkus from litigating the noncompetition and nonsolicitation claims under Texas law in the
Louisiana court. As this court previously held, the Louisiana court’s ruling that Louisiana
law applies in Louisiana to invalidate the Texas forum-selection and choice-of-law
provisions in the Employment Agreement does not invalidate those provisions in all states.
Because Rimkus could not have litigated its Texas-law claims for breach of the
noncompetition and nonsolicitation covenants in the Louisiana state court, claim preclusion
does not apply to those claims. The defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing
this case based on claim preclusion is denied.
100