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

Case 4:07-cv-00405 Document 450 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/10 Page 138 of 139
knew in 1996 that it had eight offices in four different states and that as a result, Rimkus knew
that Cammarata “would never be able to work in every geographical area in which Plaintiff
had performed five (5) jobs in the five (5) previous years.” (Docket Entry No. 322 at 10).
Cammarata contends that although Rimkus knew such a limitation was unreasonable, Rimkus
required him to sign an employment agreement restricting postemployment competition
outside the areas where Cammarata would work during his employment.
Cammarata’s argument that Rimkus knew in 1996 that the covenants were
unenforceable is not persuasive. Evidence that Rimkus knew about Cammarata’s
responsibilities and location is insufficient to establish that Rimkus knew that the
noncompetition and nonsolicitation provisions of the Agreement contained unreasonable
prprovisions. Although Texas case law on noncompetition and nonsolicitation restrictions
was clear in 1996, there is no evidence that Rimkus knew that the relevant provisions of
Cammarata’s Employment Agreement were unreasonable under Texas law. See Safeworks,
LLC v. Max Access, Inc., No. H-08-2860, 2009 WL 959969, at *7 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 8, 2009)
(granting summary judgment on a claim for attorneys’ fees under § 15.51 because even
though Texas law was clear, there was “no evidence that Safeworks representatives actually
knew that the relevant non-solicitation provisions were unreasonable under Texas law”). The
reasonableness of the limits in part depended on Cammarata’s work during his employment
with Rimkus. Cammarata has failed to raise a disputed fact issue material to determining
whether Rimkus knew in October 1996 that the posttermination restrictions on competition
in his Employment Agreement were unreasonable. This court grants Rimkus’s motion for
138