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

Case 4:07-cv-00405 Document 450 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/10 Page 103 of 139
judgment does not show that the claims for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of
fiduciary duty, and disparagement asserted in Rimkus’s reconventional demand were
“actually litigated and finally adjudged.” (Id.). Rimkus also argues that the Louisiana court
could not have applied Texas law to those claims because that court had previously held that
under Louisiana law, the Texas choice-of-law provision in the Employment Agreement was
invalid. In its supplemental response, Rimkus argues that the misappropriation claim was
not litigated in Louisiana because the reconventional demand did not plead a tort cause of
action for misappropriation. Instead, Rimkus contends that the reconventional contract claim
was based on a breach of the confidentiality provision in the Employment Agreement.
Rimkus contends that the reconventional demand’s factual allegations do “not support a
conclusion of a trade secret cause of action being pled” because there are no “allegations
enumerating the existence of confidential information or Cammarata’s taking of that
information.” (Docket Entry No. 362 at 4).
Under Louisiana law, the three requirements for issue preclusion are: “(1) a valid and
final judgment; (2) identity of the parties; and (3) an issue that has been actually litigated and
determined if its determination was essential to the prior judgment.” Sanchez v. Ga. Gulf
Corp., 02-1617, p. 14 (La. App. 1 Cir. 8/13/03); 853 So. 2d 697, 706. “Issue preclusion does
not bar re-litigation of what might have been litigated and determined, but only those matters
in controversy upon which the prior judgment or verdict was actually based.” Goodman v.
Spillers, 28933-CA, p. 10–11 (La. App. 2 Cir. 12/23/96); 686 So. 2d 160, 167 (emphasis
omitted).
103