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

Case 4:07-cv-00405 Document 450 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/10 Page 122 of 139
on November 5, 2007, states that Bell and other engineers left their “old companies” to
“create a smaller, honest, cost effective engineering alternative for the insurance claims
industry that responds to the needs of the clients in terms of cost and timeliness of reports.”
(Docket Entry No. 371; Docket Entry No. 374, Ex. U). Rimkus argues that this sentence is
disparaging because it “suggests rather pointedly that Rimkus is neither honest nor cost
effective.” (Docket Entry No. 374 at 3). Rimkus argues that it is clear Bell is referring to
Rimkus because he closes the email by stating, “I hope we can work together again.”
(Docket Entry No. 371; Docket Entry No. 374, Ex. U). The second email, which Bell sent
to a Rimkus client on August 1, 2007, states: “We have never been a target of the media, the
plaintiff’s bar, or investigated by a government entity.” (Docket Entry No. 372; Docket Entry
No. 374, Ex. Z). Bell continues: “[W]e are currently being used by attorneys for [Client] that
appreciate the difference between us and the big clearinghouse engineering firms.” (Id.).
Rimkus argues that this email is disparaging because it “impl[ies] that Rimkus has done
something wrong since it has been discussed in the news, that it has been sued – without
doubt by a plaintiff, or that the work of its engineers was investigated in the aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina.” (Docket Entry No. 374 at 6).
Under Texas law, business disparagement requires publication by the defendant of
statements that are false, maliciously stated, not privileged, and result in special damages.
C.P. Interests, Inc. v. Cal. Pools, Inc., 238 F.3d 690, 694–95 (5th Cir. 2001); see KLN Steel
CV, 2008 WL 963007, at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1 Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“The false statement
of fact must be published to a third party.”). These emails do not support the disparagement claim.
122