Rimkus Consulting Group Inc. v. Cammarata - Ballard Spahr LLP
Rimkus Consulting Group Inc. v. Cammarata - Ballard Spahr LLP
Rimkus Consulting Group Inc. v. Cammarata - Ballard Spahr LLP
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Case 4:07-cv-00405 Document 450 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/10 Page 41 of 139<br />
<strong>Rimkus</strong>’s legitimate business interests and the nonsolicitation covenant was broader than<br />
necessary because it applied to all <strong>Rimkus</strong> customers, not merely those <strong>Cammarata</strong> had<br />
worked with or solicited business from while working for <strong>Rimkus</strong>.<br />
<strong>Cammarata</strong> again moved to dismiss based on res judicata, asking this court to<br />
determine the preclusive effect of the Louisiana court’s ruling outside Louisiana. (Docket<br />
Entry No. 169). <strong>Cammarata</strong>’s motions to dismiss were granted “insofar as <strong>Rimkus</strong> seeks<br />
damages for <strong>Cammarata</strong>’s postemployment competitive activities inside Louisiana on the<br />
basis that those activities breached his Employment Agreement.” (Docket Entry No. 260,<br />
March 24, 2009 Memorandum and Opinion at 27). The motions to dismiss were denied with<br />
respect to <strong>Cammarata</strong>’s activities outside Louisiana. (Id.). This court held that the Louisiana<br />
state court’s rulings that the forum-selection, choice-of-law, noncompetition, and<br />
nonsolicitation contract provisions were unenforceable in Louisiana under Louisiana law did<br />
not make those provisions invalid in all states. (Id. at 25).<br />
In response to the declaratory judgment complaint Bell and <strong>Cammarata</strong> filed in<br />
Louisiana state court on November 15, 2006, <strong>Rimkus</strong> filed an answer and a “Reconventional<br />
Demand.” 27<br />
<strong>Rimkus</strong> asserted that “the entirety of this Reconventional Demand should be<br />
governed according to the laws of the State of Texas.” (Docket Entry No. 309, Ex. B at 6).<br />
<strong>Rimkus</strong>’s reconventional demand asserted causes of action for breach of the Employment<br />
Agreement’s noncompetition, nonsolicitation, and confidentiality provisions, breach of the<br />
Common Stock Purchase Agreement, breach of fiduciary duty, and disparagement. (Id.).<br />
27 Under Louisiana civil procedure, a reconventional demand is similar to a counterclaim.<br />
41