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

Case 4:07-cv-00405 Document 450 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/10 Page 101 of 139
As discussed below, the Louisiana court entered a valid and final judgment under
Texas law on Rimkus’s reconventional demand for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach
of fiduciary duty, and disparagement, satisfying the Louisiana elements for preclusion. See
Smith v. State, 04-1317, p. 22 (La. 3/11/05); 899 So. 2d 516, 529–30. However, whether
analyzed under issue or claim preclusion, the defendants’ spoliation of evidence warrants
applying the Louisiana statutory exception to res judicata. The defendants’ spoliation
prevented Rimkus from litigating its misappropriation and related claims in Louisiana. The
spoliation justifies granting Rimkus relief from preclusion under the statute.
C. Issue Preclusion
The defendants alternatively argue issue preclusion. Each of the allegedly precluded
issues is analyzed below.
1. Noncompetition and Nonsolicitation Covenants
On January 4, 2008, the Louisiana state appellate court ruled that the noncompetition
clause in Bell’s Stock Purchase Agreement was invalid and unenforceable because it was
contrary to Louisiana law and public policy. (Docket Entry No. 309, Ex. N). On March 17,
2008, the Louisiana state trial court ruled that the nonsolicitation of employees clause in the
defendants’ employment agreements was unenforceable. (Id., Ex. Q). The defendants argue
that issue preclusion bars relitigation of Rimkus’s claims for breach of these covenants.
Rimkus responds that “[t]his court is obligated to apply Texas law to the enforcement of the
non-solicitation of employees provision . . . which is not the same issue that the Louisiana
court had to decide in ruling on the enforceability of the provision in the Louisiana action.”
101