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

Case 4:07-cv-00405 Document 450 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/10 Page 106 of 139
To the extent the breach of fiduciary duty claim against Bell is based on
misappropriation, it also satisfies the elements of preclusion. The May 11, 2009 judgment
is valid and final and the parties in both suits are the same. Rimkus’s argument that the
issues were not actually litigated in Louisiana because the Louisiana court applied Louisiana
law is not supported by the record. The Louisiana court held applied Louisiana law to “the
claims of the plaintiffs”—Cammarata, Bell, and DeHarde. The Louisiana court stated that
it invalidated the Texas choice-of-law provision and the noncompetition and nonsolicitation
covenants in the Employment Agreement under Louisiana law. But the Louisiana court did
not state that it applied Louisiana law to Rimkus’s claims involving the misappropriation of
confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information or to the claims for breach of fiduciary
duty and disparagement. Rimkus asked the Louisiana court to apply Texas law to its
reconventional demand. The motion for summary judgment Cammarata, Bell, and DeHarde
filed to dismiss the claims in Rimkus’s reconventional demand did not deal with
noncompetition or nonsolicitation claims, which had been decided by the Louisiana court in
2007, but rather with Rimkus’s claims for misappropriation of trade secrets or proprietary
information, breach of fiduciary duty, and disparagement. Both sides briefed these issues in
the motion for summary judgment under Texas law. In oral argument on these issues,
counsel relied on Texas law. The Louisiana court’s order states that it was based on a review
of “the evidence, the law and the arguments of counsel.” (Docket Entry No. 309, Ex. G).
Rimkus also argues that issue preclusion does not apply because the Louisiana court
“did not express any basis” for its ruling on the misappropriation, breach of fiduciary duty,
106