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

Case 4:07-cv-00405 Document 450 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/10 Page 102 of 139
(Docket Entry No. 324 at 22).
The January and March 2008 Louisiana state-court judgments are entitled to the same
preclusive effect as the July 26, 2007 Louisiana state-court judgment declaring the
noncompetition and nonsolicitation covenants unenforceable under Louisiana law. The
Louisiana court’s determination that in Louisiana, the noncompetition covenant in the Stock
Purchase Agreement and the nonsolicitation of employees provision in the Employment
Agreement are unenforceable under Louisiana law is entitled to preclusive effect in this
court. The Louisiana court’s ruling, however, does not invalidate the noncompetition and
nonsolicitation provisions in all states and does not preclude this court from considering the
enforceability of the noncompetition and nonsolicitation covenants under Texas law—which
the parties specified in their agreements—for activities outside Louisiana that allegedly
breached those covenants.
2. Misappropriation of Trade Secrets, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and
Disparagement
The defendants argue that Rimkus litigated its claims for misappropriation of trade
secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, and disparagement in the Louisiana court and that the May
11, 2009 judgment dismissing Rimkus’s reconventional demand disposed of these claims.
The defendants argue that this judgment is entitled to preclusive effect in this court with
respect to these issues, which were actually litigated in the Louisiana case. Rimkus responds
that issue preclusion does not apply because “there is no way to determine what issue or
issues the Louisiana court must have considered in disposing of Rimkus’ reconventional
demand.” (Docket Entry No. 324 at 20). Rimkus contends that the May 11, 2009 Louisiana
102