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

Case 4:07-cv-00405 Document 450 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/10 Page 127 of 139
covenant not to compete provided by Section 15.51 of [the Texas Business and Commerce
Code] are exclusive and preempt any other criteria for enforceability of a covenant not to
compete or procedures and remedies in an action to enforce a covenant not to compete under
common law or otherwise.” TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 15.52 (emphasis added). Under this
provision, remedies for breach of a covenant not to compete are limited to the remedies
available under § 15.51(c). See Light v. Centel Cellular Co. of Tex., 883 S.W.2d 642, 644
(Tex. 1994) (“Section 15.52 makes clear that the Legislature intended the Covenants Not to
Compete Act to largely supplant the Texas common law relating to enforcement of covenants
not to compete. Thus, we apply the Covenants Not to Compete Act to the facts of this case,
in lieu of ‘any other criteria for enforceability of a covenant not to compete or procedures and
remedies in an action to enforce a covenant not to compete under common law or
otherwise.’”), abrogated in part on other grounds by Sheshunoff Mgmt. Servs, L.P. v.
Johnson, 209 S.W.3d 644, 651 (Tex. 2006); Perez v. Tex. Disposal Sys., Inc., 103 S.W.3d
591, 593–94 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, pet. denied) (“Just as the Act’s criteria for
enforcing a covenant not to compete preempt other law, so do the remedies provided under
the Act.”). Rimkus may only seek damages under § 15.51(c).
Rimkus is not entitled to damages under § 15.51(c) for Cammarata’s allealleged
breach of the noncompetition and nonsolicitation covenants. That section “precludes a
damages award for conduct prior to any necessary reformation of the scope of the covenant.”
Mann Frankfort Stein & Lipp Advisors, Inc. v. Fielding, 289 S.W.3d 844, 855 (Tex. 2009)
(Hecht, J., concurring); see also Safeworks, LLC v. Max Access, Inc., No. H-08-2860, 2009
127