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

Case 4:07-cv-00405 Document 450 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/10 Page 108 of 139
brought a separate suit for malicious prosecution. Id. The corporation argued that issue
preclusion applied to essential elements of the malicious-prosecution claim. 28933-CV, p.
9; 686 So. 2d at 166. The court rejected this argument, holding that the directed verdict in
the previous suit—which was essentially a finding that no unfair trade practice occurred—did
not equate to a finding about whether the corporation had engaged in fraud, deception, or
misrepresentation. 28933-CV, p. 10; 686 So. 2d at 167. The court held that the previous
judgment was not entitled to preclusive effect because the court was unable to determine the
basis on which that litigation was resolved. 28933-CV, p. 11; 686 So. 2d at 167. By
contrast, Bell and Cammarata moved under Texas law for summary judgment in Louisiana
on Rimkus’s reconventional demand claims for misappropriation of confidential, proprietary,
or trade secret information, breach of fiduciary duty, and disparagement. The Louisiana
court granted the motion for summary judgment on these claims after reviewing the evidence,
the law, and the parties’ arguments, which were all under Texas law. The court stated the
basis for its judgment. Rimkus’s reliance on Lamana is also unavailing because in contrast
to the facts in that case, the claims pleaded in Rimkus’s reconventional demand were not
“eliminated” from the Louisiana court’s judgment.
The Louisiana court expressly granted the motion for summary judgment on all claims
asserted in the reconventional demand. But this court is not precluded from reconsidering
these issues because a statutory exception applies.
D. Exception to Preclusion under Louisiana Law
In Louisiana, “[a] judgment does not bar another action by the plaintiff . . . [w]hen
108