You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

RenewData Corporation// Shawn Strickler v. Shawn Strickler// Cross-Appellee, RenewData Corporation

Citation: Not availableDocket: 03-05-00273-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; March 2, 2006; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case involves RenewData Corporation suing former employee Shawn Strickler for breaching a Proprietary Information and Inventions Agreement after joining a competitor. The primary legal issues include the enforceability of a non-compete clause, breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with prospective business relations, and breach of contract for failing to return proprietary documents. The district court found the non-compete clause unenforceable due to RenewData's lack of diligence in seeking an extension. The jury ruled against Strickler for using proprietary information post-employment and interfering with business relations, awarding RenewData $2,500 in damages. Although no damages were granted for breach of contract, the court issued a permanent injunction against Strickler and awarded attorney's fees to RenewData. Strickler's appeal challenged the jury's findings and the scope of the injunction, but the district court's judgment was affirmed, citing sufficient evidence and legal grounds for the decisions rendered.

Legal Issues Addressed

Award of Attorney's Fees and Nominal Damages

Application: The award of injunctive relief was deemed sufficient to justify attorney’s fees, even in the absence of substantial monetary damages.

Reasoning: An award of injunctive relief is deemed a 'something of value' justifying an award of attorney’s fees, even in the absence of monetary damages, as established in Butler and supported by case law.

Breach of Contract for Non-Return of Proprietary Documents

Application: Strickler was found to have breached his contract by failing to return company documents, which were deemed proprietary.

Reasoning: Strickler was required by an agreement to return all company documents upon leaving Renew, including proprietary information and customer details. He claimed ignorance regarding the possession of company documents at the time of his termination, asserting that he was not asked to return them and that documents on his home computer were sent by a colleague's spouse.

Breach of Fiduciary Duty Post-Employment

Application: The jury found that Strickler breached his fiduciary duty by using proprietary information for personal gain after his employment ended.

Reasoning: Renew maintains that Strickler's actions in using proprietary information for personal gain constitute a breach of this fiduciary duty, separate from the act of competing itself.

Enforceability of Non-Compete Agreements

Application: The court determined that RenewData could not obtain injunctive relief for the non-compete clause due to the expiration of the contractual obligation and a lack of diligence in pursuing an extension.

Reasoning: The district court partially granted Strickler’s motion for a directed verdict regarding the unenforceability of the covenant not to compete, determining that Renew could not obtain injunctive relief against Strickler for working with competitors because his contractual obligation had expired and Renew did not diligently pursue an extension.

Tortious Interference with Prospective Business Relations

Application: The jury concluded that Strickler's actions constituted tortious interference with a potential business relationship between Renew and Computer Associates.

Reasoning: Strickler's actions during negotiations led to the impression that he was involved in pricing strategies for the project, supporting the argument that he consciously aimed to disrupt the business relationship between Renew and Computer Associates.