Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law 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
The appeal involves RenewData Corporation suing its former employee, Shawn Strickler, for allegedly breaching a Proprietary Information and Inventions Agreement after he began working for a competitor. RenewData contended that Strickler violated a covenant not to compete, tortiously interfered with its business relationships, and neglected his post-termination fiduciary duties. The jury ruled in favor of RenewData, and the district court affirmed this judgment. RenewData specializes in electronic evidence services, assisting clients, mainly corporations and law firms, with data retrieval from backup tapes without the need for restoring original software and hardware configurations. Strickler was hired as the director of corporate sales services and was provided with a pipeline document listing potential customers, which was crucial to his role. Prior to starting, he received and signed the Proprietary Information and Inventions Agreement, which included a non-compete clause and nondisclosure provisions. He signed the agreement on his first day, after which he began training and accessing company resources related to his job. On November 14, 2003, Renew terminated Shawn Strickler, who was an at-will employee, with a non-compete clause effective until November 14, 2004. Strickler contacted Brendan Sullivan, CEO of competitor eMag Solutions, Inc., on November 17, 2003, expressing interest in employment and referencing discussions between eMag and Renew. Sullivan indicated interest in speaking with Strickler. On November 26, 2003, Strickler inquired with his former supervisor, Gomes, about working for a partner of Renew and sought a waiver of his non-compete agreement, which Gomes did not provide. During negotiations with eMag, Strickler projected he could generate $1 million in business, and eMag confirmed no earning cap to encourage his recruitment. An employment offer was extended on December 22, 2003, contingent upon signing eMag’s confidentiality and non-competition agreement and satisfactory reference checks, which Strickler did not complete. On December 29, 2003, Strickler informed Gomes that he accepted a position with eMag starting January 2, 2004. Renew's counsel warned Strickler that working for eMag would breach his non-compete agreement. On his first day at eMag, supervisor Gregor advised Strickler to seek legal counsel regarding his obligations to Renew. Strickler, during his second week, contacted DTI, a former client, to inform them of his new position and solicited business, despite Sullivan's assertion that it was inappropriate for Strickler to reach out to past contacts from Renew. DTI subsequently requested a price quote from Strickler for services. Strickler initiated communication with Maurice Leibenstern of Computer Associates during his second week at eMag, offering services related to a governmental investigation. Despite a prior relationship, Leibenstern indicated Computer Associates had engaged Renew regarding a similar issue but expressed interest in further discussions with Strickler while also contacting Renew. A competitive bidding process ensued, with Strickler managing eMag’s proposals and strategically highlighting eMag's advantages over Renew. After Renew submitted its bid, Strickler accused it of unethical practices. Ultimately, Computer Associates selected eMag as its vendor, resulting in Strickler earning a commission of $2,000 to $3,000. Renew subsequently sued Strickler on January 30, 2004, alleging breach of contract, tortious interference, and breach of fiduciary duty, seeking damages and injunctive relief. A temporary restraining order was issued on February 3, 2004, restricting Strickler from contacting Renew’s clients or disclosing proprietary information. A narrower temporary injunction was granted on March 22, 2004, allowing Strickler to continue working at eMag despite the non-compete agreement. Renew appealed this decision but later dismissed the appeal on December 7, 2004, after filing a motion for an extension of the non-compete period. Strickler sought to dissolve the temporary injunction, which the court denied, alongside Renew's motion for an extension. The trial commenced on January 24, 2005, where the court partially granted Strickler’s motion for a directed verdict, deeming the non-compete clause unenforceable. The jury found Strickler liable for failing to protect Renew's proprietary information, not returning company documents, tortiously interfering with its business relationship, and breaching his fiduciary duty. They awarded Renew $2,500 in damages—Strickler's commission—while not granting any compensation for breach of contract claims. On April 7, 2005, the court formalized a judgment for Renew, including the $2,500, costs, attorney’s fees, and a permanent injunction against Strickler's disclosure of proprietary information. Renew filed an appeal on May 9, 2005, with Strickler submitting a cross-appeal on May 23, 2005. Renew requested extensions for its brief on July 8 and August 30, 2005, and sought to reschedule oral arguments from November 16, 2005, to February 2006, or alternatively requested a decision based on briefs. The case was ultimately submitted on briefs on November 16, 2005. In its appeal, Renew contends that the district court erred by not extending the covenant-not-to-compete beyond its one-year limit and by partially granting Strickler’s directed verdict on the covenant's enforceability. Strickler's cross-appeal asserts that the district court erred by (I) denying a directed verdict on claims of breach of contract, tortious interference, and breach of fiduciary duty; (ii) issuing an overly broad permanent injunction; (iii) awarding attorney's fees and costs to Renew; and (iv) granting nominal damages to Renew for breach of contract. In analyzing Renew's argument for an equitable extension of the covenant not to compete, it was noted that the district court has discretion in crafting injunctions, particularly given the delays in the case. The court may deny equitable relief if the requesting party is responsible for the delays. Renew's claim of diligence in pursuing remedies is contradicted by its actions, including two extensions it requested for filing its brief and its voluntary dismissal of its appeal. The timeline indicates that Renew's delays were not merely litigation-related but were largely self-imposed. Consequently, the court found that Renew did not diligently pursue its remedies, and thus did not abuse its discretion in denying the equitable extension of the covenant. Renew’s first issue was overruled. 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. The issue of the covenant's enforceability under section 15.50 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code is deemed moot. Consequently, Renew’s claim for injunctive relief is overruled. On cross-appeal, Strickler contends that the district court erred by denying his directed verdict on Renew’s remaining claims, which include allegations of Strickler breaching his contract by disclosing proprietary information, tortiously interfering with a business relationship, and breaching his fiduciary duty after termination. However, Strickler waived his factual sufficiency challenges by not filing a motion for a new trial. The court assesses legal sufficiency by evaluating evidence favorably towards the jury's verdict and assumes jurors resolved credibility issues in favor of the verdict. Strickler had agreed in the employment contract not to disclose Renew’s proprietary information during and after his employment, defining proprietary information to include trade secrets and confidential company data related to various aspects of the business. Strickler contends there is no evidence he disclosed Renew's proprietary information, despite being trained on electronic evidence processes and gaining access to customer data after signing a confidentiality agreement with Renew. He acknowledged the importance of accessing Renew's records for his role, agreeing that the pipeline document and SalesForce.com data were sensitive and not meant for competitors. Strickler had previously signed nondisclosure agreements with other companies before joining Renew. Following his termination, Strickler contacted co-worker Dan Junk, admitting to the call but disputing Junk's account, which alleged Strickler indicated competitors would be interested in his knowledge of Renew's business. Strickler's first email to eMag identified him as Renew's former director of corporate sales, referenced previous discussions about competing technologies, and sought a meeting to discuss how eMag might benefit from his expertise. He was allowed to create his job title and negotiate his contract without signing eMag's confidentiality agreement or undergoing reference checks. Before starting at eMag, Strickler claimed he could generate $1 million in business in his first year. eMag's Gregor emphasized Strickler's role in bringing in new business but did not take steps to ensure Strickler did not contact Renew's former customers. Strickler's emails indicated he was positioning eMag against Renew, raising concerns about whether he shared confidential information. He admitted to knowing Renew’s pricing, calling their low bid "playing dirty," and suggested price adjustments to a client after discussions on pricing. Leibenstern testified about his negotiations with Strickler, expressing surprise at Strickler's claim of non-involvement in pricing discussions with Computer Associates. Ultimately, Computer Associates recommended eMag to PriceWaterhouseCoopers, which selected eMag for their project. The circumstances do not support multiple inferences, as there is sufficient evidence for reasonable jurors to conclude Strickler disclosed Renew’s proprietary information. 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. However, these defenses were unconvincing. The elements of a breach of contract claim were established: a valid contract existed, Renew performed its obligations, Strickler breached the agreement, and Renew suffered damages. The jury found that Strickler failed to return the documents as promised. His lack of awareness of the documents does not excuse his breach, and the agreement does not stipulate that Renew must request the documents before Strickler's obligation to return them arises. The content of the document Strickler referred to as a "Fortune 1000 list" included identifying notations indicating it was proprietary to Renew. Strickler did not search his email until prompted by requests for document production. Strickler's delay in delivering a document to Renew until the discovery phase supports the jury's conclusion that he did not comply with his Agreement to return company documents. To prove tortious interference with a prospective business relationship, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) a reasonable probability of entering a business relationship, (2) an independently tortious or unlawful act by the defendant that obstructed this relationship, (3) the defendant's intentional or knowingly certain interference, and (4) actual harm suffered by the plaintiff as a result. Strickler contends there was no reasonable probability of a contract between Computer Associates and Renew because Renew had no prior business with Computer Associates, lacked the capability to complete the work promptly, and Computer Associates did not select the project's vendor. However, evidence presented, including an email from Leibenstern indicating that the chief information officer of Computer Associates had a relationship with Renew, counters this claim. It was established that Computer Associates managed bids and negotiations for the project, and while PriceWaterhouseCoopers would choose the vendor, Computer Associates was responsible for vendor recommendations. The testimony indicated a reasonable probability that a contractual relationship could have existed between Renew and Computer Associates. Strickler also challenges the existence of an independently tortious act, misinterpreting the legal standard, which requires proof of conduct actionable under a recognized tort rather than criminal behavior. The breach of fiduciary duty by Strickler qualifies as an independent tort, fulfilling the requirements for tortious interference, supported by evidence that could convince reasonable jurors of Renew's breach of fiduciary duty claim. Strickler contests the claim that he intentionally interfered with Renew's business relationship with Computer Associates, asserting a lack of evidence that he knowingly acted to prevent such a relationship. Despite this, Strickler initiated contact with Computer Associates, explicitly stating his intent to compete and win their business. Evidence presented to the jury included Strickler's communications indicating he was positioning eMag favorably against Renew and his awareness of Renew's confidential pricing information. Testimony revealed uncertainty about Strickler's safeguarding of this information, and colleagues did not intervene to prevent his outreach to Renew's former customers. 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. The jury found evidence sufficient to support a $2,500 damage award for tortious interference, with testimony estimating Strickler's potential commission from the project to be around $2,000 to $3,000. Strickler argues that his fiduciary duties while employed by Renew do not prevent him from preparing for future competition and claims that an at-will employee can act in this manner without restriction. He also contends that a lack of a noncompetition agreement permits him to compete post-resignation. In contrast, Renew asserts that an employee has fiduciary duties to their employer, including not competing or using confidential information to the employer's detriment, obligations that survive employment termination. 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. In Rugen v. Interactive Business Systems Inc., the court established that, absent an enforceable non-compete agreement, an employer cannot prevent a former employee from soliciting clients. However, former employees are prohibited from using confidential information or trade secrets acquired during employment for personal gain. Strickler contended there was no evidence he disclosed any confidential information from Renew to third parties, asserting that Computer Associates was not a prospective client during his tenure and that the proprietary information definition in his agreement did not encompass prospective clients. Despite these assertions, the jury found evidence of Strickler breaching his post-termination fiduciary duty to Renew. Key evidence included Strickler's intent to compete, his actions to undermine Renew by highlighting its shortcomings to Computer Associates, and his access to confidential pricing information. Testimonies indicated uncertainty from Strickler's new employer about whether he was protecting Renew’s confidential data. Strickler's previous statements suggested he believed competitors would value his knowledge of Renew's business. Additionally, Strickler's communications implied a desire to leverage his experience for eMag's benefit, further supporting the jury's findings against him. Strickler was permitted to establish his title, negotiate contract terms, and obtain employment at eMag without signing standard confidentiality, noncompetition, and nondisclosure agreements, and without any reference checks. Testimony indicated that Strickler’s commission on the Computer Associates project could have been 18% of the gross margin, approximately $2,000 or $3,000, which reasonable jurors could consider relevant to Renew’s breach of fiduciary duty claim. Strickler's challenges to the legal sufficiency of evidence were overruled. In his remaining arguments, Strickler contended the district court abused its discretion by issuing an overly broad permanent injunction, awarding attorney’s fees to Renew, and granting nominal damages on contract claims. Strickler did not properly raise the issue of costs related to attorney's fees and thus was not addressed. The review of a permanent injunction and attorney's fees award is based on an abuse of discretion standard, where an abuse occurs when a decision is arbitrary or unreasonable. Strickler criticized the permanent injunction for lacking a clear definition of Renew's "customers" and asserted that Renew's evidence did not demonstrate the necessity for injunctive relief due to a lack of wrongful acts, imminent harm, irreparable injury, or an absence of adequate legal remedies. Conversely, Renew defended the injunction as necessary to protect confidential information and trade secrets, asserting that nondisclosure agreements do not violate public policy and are enforceable even when non-compete clauses are not. Agreements that do not restrain trade do not require temporal, geographical, or activity limitations to be enforceable, as established in Zep Mfg. Co. The court determined that the plaintiff would face irreparable harm from the defendant's potential disclosure of RenewData's confidential information, leading to a permanent injunction against Shawn Strickler. Strickler is prohibited from sharing any proprietary information of RenewData, including trade secrets, business strategies, and customer identities, particularly with eMag Solutions, a competitor. Strickler had received training and access to sensitive business information, which he acknowledged was crucial to his role at RenewData and not meant for competitors. Evidence presented during the trial demonstrated Strickler's intent to share Renew’s business insights with eMag, undermining his claims of engaging in legitimate competition. The judgment explicitly bars Strickler from revealing customer identities and does not outline permissible conduct or allow for canvassing or soliciting business unrelated to RenewData. Additionally, Strickler's actions, including attempts to contact past clients and offer services through eMag, were deemed inappropriate given his prior employment with RenewData. Computer Associates communicated with Renew regarding a related matter but did not proceed, prompting Leibenstern to express interest in discussing the matter with Strickler. Strickler managed all communications about eMag’s bids, indicating a strategy to highlight eMag's advantages over Renew. After receiving Renew's bid from Leibenstern, Strickler accused Renew of unfair practices. eMag ultimately secured the project with recommendations from Computer Associates to PriceWaterhouseCoopers, resulting in Strickler earning a commission of $2,000 to $3,000. On January 30, 2004, Renew filed a lawsuit against Strickler, claiming breach of contract, tortious interference with prospective business, and breach of fiduciary duty, seeking damages, a permanent injunction, costs, and attorney’s fees. A temporary restraining order was issued on February 3, 2004, limiting Strickler's ability to contact Renew's customers and use proprietary information. A subsequent temporary injunction on March 22, 2004, maintained restrictions but allowed Strickler to continue working for eMag, despite his non-compete clause. Renew sought an accelerated appeal on March 19, 2004, and requested oral arguments, later postponing its brief until June 10, 2004, and ultimately dismissing the appeal on December 7, 2004. Renew also requested an extension of the non-compete period in November 2004. Strickler moved to dissolve the temporary injunction but was denied on November 29, 2004. During the trial starting January 24, 2005, the court partially granted Strickler's directed verdict motion, deeming the non-compete clause unenforceable. The jury later found that Strickler did not comply with his agreement regarding the disclosure of Renew’s proprietary information. Strickler failed to return company documents to Renew, tortiously interfered with Renew's potential business relationship with Computer Associates, and did not fulfill his post-termination fiduciary duties. The jury awarded Renew $2,500 for tortious interference and breach of fiduciary duty but did not grant damages for breach of contract. On April 7, 2005, the district court entered a judgment awarding Renew $2,500 in actual damages, nominal damages for breach of contract, plus costs, attorney's fees, and a permanent injunction against Strickler disclosing proprietary information. Renew appealed the judgment on May 9, 2005, and Strickler filed a cross-appeal on May 23, 2005. Renew requested extensions for filing its briefs in July and August 2005, and the case was set for oral argument on November 16, 2005. Renew later sought to reschedule the argument for February 2006 or to have the matter resolved based on briefs. The appeal raised issues regarding the district court's refusal to extend the covenant-not-to-compete period and its partial grant of Strickler’s motion for a directed verdict on the covenant's enforceability. Strickler's cross-appeal claimed errors in denying his directed verdict motions and in the court's injunction and damages awards. Renew argued that it should not be penalized for delays in litigation regarding the covenant enforcement, despite its own requests for extensions that contributed to the timeline. The covenant not to compete commenced on Strickler's termination date, November 14, 2003, and although Renew was aware of his new employment by December 31, 2003, it did not file suit until January 30, 2004. Renew voluntarily dismissed its appeal on December 7, 2004. The district court's temporary injunction order dated March 22 included a trial date set for October 11, 2004, which was before the expiration of the covenant not to compete. Renew requested two continuances for the trial; the first was granted, rescheduling the trial to January 24, 2005, while the second was denied. On November 8, 2004, Renew sought an equitable extension of the covenant, which was about to expire. The court found that the delays were due to Renew's actions, not inherent to litigation, concluding that Renew did not diligently pursue its remedies. Consequently, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Renew's motion for an extension of the covenant. Regarding Renew's request for injunctive relief against Strickler, the covenant had expired, and the court determined that Renew’s lack of diligence in seeking an extension rendered the request moot. Thus, the enforceability of the covenant under section 15.50 of the business and commerce code was also moot, leading to the overruling of Renew’s second issue. In Strickler's cross-appeal, he argued that the district court erred by denying his directed verdict on Renew’s claims, which included allegations of breaching contract obligations, tortious interference, and breach of fiduciary duty. However, Strickler's factual sufficiency challenges were waived due to the absence of a motion for new trial. Legal sufficiency review requires evidence to be viewed favorably towards the verdict, assuming jurors made reasonable credibility determinations. A no-evidence issue is established when there is a complete absence of evidence for a vital fact, when the law precludes consideration of the only evidence presented, when the evidence is merely a scintilla, or when the evidence conclusively contradicts the vital fact. Strickler, under the Agreement, committed to not disclose Renew’s proprietary information, which encompasses trade secrets and other confidential data. He acknowledged the importance of accessing Renew’s records for his job and understood that sharing this information would harm the company. Despite Strickler's claim of no evidence of disclosure, he engaged in activities that involved proprietary information, such as training on the electronic evidence process and accessing SalesForce.com. On his termination day, he called co-worker Dan Junk, admitting to the call but disputing Junk’s claims that he mentioned competitors would be interested in his knowledge of Renew's business. Junk testified that Strickler implied he could easily find a new job due to his insider knowledge. Strickler's initial email to Sullivan at eMag identified him as Renew's former director of corporate sales, referenced a prior meeting about technology collaboration, and sought a meeting to explore potential contributions to eMag. Evidence indicates Strickler negotiated his employment terms at eMag without signing the standard confidentiality, noncompetition, and nondisclosure agreements or undergoing reference checks. He projected he could generate $1 million in business in his first year, and eMag's Gregor confirmed there was no cap on his earnings, emphasizing the expectation for Strickler to secure new business. However, Gregor did not take steps to prevent Strickler from contacting Renew's former clients. Strickler's communications suggested he was leveraging knowledge of Renew's offerings to promote eMag, including subtle comparisons with Renew's capabilities to Computer Associates. Sullivan expressed uncertainty about whether Strickler disclosed any confidential information from Renew. Strickler acknowledged knowledge of Renew’s pricing, which he considered confidential, and communicated concerns about Renew's competitive bidding practices. He also discussed pricing adjustments with eMag, indicating involvement in pricing strategies for a project with Computer Associates, which ultimately recommended eMag to PriceWaterhouseCoopers. The evidence presented supports the conclusion that Strickler likely disclosed proprietary information from Renew. Additionally, Strickler had a contractual obligation to return all company documents containing proprietary information upon leaving Renew, as stipulated in the agreement he signed. Property owned by the Company, including storage media and work areas, is subject to inspection by Company personnel at any time without notice. Employees must assist in executing termination statements upon departure. Strickler claims he was unaware of possessing Company documents at termination and that he was not asked to return them. However, the court finds his arguments unpersuasive. Key elements for a breach of contract claim include the existence of a valid contract, performance by the plaintiff, a breach by the defendant, and resultant damages. Strickler had access to confidential information from his first day and agreed to return all proprietary documents upon leaving. The jury determined he failed to comply, and his lack of awareness does not excuse this breach. The Agreement does not necessitate a demand from the Company prior to the return of documents. The specific request from Velasco is irrelevant to Strickler's obligations. A document he retained, labeled as a "Fortune 1000 list," was not searched until litigation discovery, supporting the jury's finding of non-compliance. For a claim of tortious interference with a prospective business relationship, a plaintiff must demonstrate a reasonable probability of entering such a relationship, independent unlawful acts by the defendant, intentional interference, and resulting harm. Strickler contends that there was no reasonable probability of a relationship between Computer Associates and Renew due to previous lack of business, Renew’s inability to meet project timelines, and Computer Associates not being responsible for vendor selection. Leibenstern’s email indicated that the Chief Information Officer of Computer Associates had a prior connection with Renew, which had already been approached regarding another aspect of the project, and that Renew would be contacted again despite Computer Associates not having pursued them before. Leibenstern, unfamiliar with Strickler or eMag prior to the email, recognized Renew. Evidence demonstrated that Computer Associates managed bids and negotiations for the project, with Leibenstern and Strickler confirming that while PriceWaterhouseCoopers would select the vendor, Computer Associates would recommend one. Gomes noted that when Renew submitted proposals, customers chose other vendors only 10-15% of the time, suggesting a strong likelihood of a contract between Computer Associates and Renew. Strickler contended there was no evidence of him engaging in independently tortious conduct that approached criminality, misrepresenting the legal standard for such conduct as articulated in *Wal-Mart Stores v. Sturges*. The court clarified that for a tortious interference claim, the plaintiff must demonstrate the defendant's actions were independently tortious or wrongful, meaning they must be actionable under recognized tort law. Strickler’s breach of fiduciary duty qualifies as such, supporting Renew’s claim for tortious interference with prospective business relations, as seen in *Bright v. Addison* where a lawyer's breach of duty supported a similar claim. Strickler also challenged the evidence of his intent to disrupt the relationship or the certainty of interference resulting from his actions. However, he initiated contact with Computer Associates, asserting his competitive intentions in his email to Leibenstern, and communicated eMag’s strengths to enhance their positioning with Computer Associates. Strickler had knowledge of Renew’s confidential pricing information, which raised concerns about his handling of that information. Additionally, Sullivan did not take steps to prevent Strickler from contacting Renew’s former customers, and Strickler’s communication regarding Renew indicated an intention to compete aggressively. Strickler's actions during negotiations led Leibenstern to believe he played a role in setting project pricing, suggesting he intended to disrupt a potential business relationship between Computer Associates and Renew or was aware that his actions would likely cause such interference. Strickler disputed the jury's $2,500 damage award to Renew for tortious interference, arguing insufficient evidence. However, Sullivan indicated that Strickler's commission on the Computer Associates project could have been around $2,000 or $3,000. The evidence presented could reasonably support a jury's conclusion that Strickler tortiously interfered with Renew's business prospects. Regarding his fiduciary duty, Strickler claimed that as an at-will employee, he could prepare for future competition while still employed, citing case law to argue that post-resignation competition is permissible without a noncompetition agreement. He also contended that a breach of fiduciary duty claim is preempted by the covenant not to compete act if such an agreement exists. In response, Renew asserted that an agency fiduciary relationship exists between employer and employee, encompassing duties such as not competing against the employer or using confidential information for personal gain, which persists post-employment. Renew highlighted that unauthorized use of proprietary information for personal benefit is distinct from mere competition and is not preempted by the covenant act. The Rugen case clarified that, absent a non-compete agreement, a former employee cannot be prevented from soliciting clients, but must not exploit confidential information or trade secrets acquired during employment to the detriment of the former employer. Strickler contends that he did not disclose any proprietary information from his employment at Renew to third parties, and argues that Computer Associates was not a prospective customer during his tenure at Renew. He asserts that the definition of proprietary information in his Agreement excludes information about prospective customers, claims he was merely a conduit for pricing information, and challenges the jury's $2,500 damage award for breach of fiduciary duty as unsupported by evidence. However, there is evidence showing Strickler breached his post-termination fiduciary duty to Renew. This includes his competitive intentions regarding Computer Associates, remarks highlighting Renew's weaknesses, knowledge of confidential pricing, and participation in a re-bid against Renew. His new employer was uncertain about whether Strickler was safeguarding Renew’s confidential information. Testimony indicated that Computer Associates was indeed a prospective customer. Strickler's argument regarding the Agreement's definition does not address Renew's claim that the definition was not exhaustive. Furthermore, during a conversation on the night of his termination, Strickler expressed confidence that competitors, including eMag, would be interested in his knowledge and dismissed the value of non-compete covenants. He was also negative about Renew's leadership and attempted to dissuade a colleague from joining the company. Additionally, Strickler’s initial email to eMag identified him as Renew's former director of corporate sales and suggested a meeting to discuss potential benefits from his expertise, despite having no prior contact with Sullivan from eMag. The record indicates that Strickler was permitted to negotiate his employment terms without signing eMag's standard confidentiality and non-compete agreements. Sullivan testified that Strickler’s commission on the Computer Associates project would have been approximately 18% of the gross margin, estimated at $2,000 or $3,000. This testimony could support Renew's claim of breach of fiduciary duty. Strickler's challenges regarding legal sufficiency were overruled, specifically his third, fourth, seventh, and eighth issues. Strickler contended that the district court abused its discretion by issuing a vague and overly broad permanent injunction, awarding attorney’s fees to Renew, and granting nominal damages for contract claims. However, the court did not address Strickler's argument about the award of costs since it was not raised in the district court and lacked supporting argument in his brief. The trial court's grant of a permanent injunction is typically reviewed for abuse of discretion. Strickler argued that the injunction lacked a clear definition of what constitutes Renew's “customers” and claimed Renew did not provide sufficient evidence of wrongful acts, imminent harm, or irreparable injury necessary for injunctive relief. In contrast, Renew defended the injunction as a means to protect confidential information and trade secrets, asserting that nondisclosure agreements do not restrain trade and can be enforced without the limitations required for non-compete agreements. The court found that plaintiff RenewData would suffer irreparable harm, including loss of customers and damage to goodwill, if defendant Shawn Strickler disclosed confidential information to third parties, specifically competitor eMag Solutions. Due to the uncertain nature of these damages, the court determined that RenewData had no adequate legal remedy. Consequently, it issued a permanent injunction against Strickler, prohibiting him from disclosing any proprietary information, trade secrets, or confidential knowledge of RenewData to eMag or others. This includes a wide range of business-related information such as customer identities, marketing strategies, and financial data. Strickler received training on RenewData's processes and acknowledged the importance of the information to his role, affirming that it was not information RenewData would want to share with competitors. Evidence presented at trial included Strickler's plans to share RenewData's business insights with eMag and his failure to return a document belonging to RenewData upon leaving. The court also noted Strickler's communications suggesting collaboration with eMag to leverage RenewData's information against its interests. The injunction differs from prior cases (such as Computek) in that it does not outline permissible conduct or include a list of excluded businesses, nor does it prevent general canvassing or solicitation. Evidence of Strickler's wrongful actions and intent to harm RenewData was deemed sufficient to justify the court's decision. Strickler's involvement with Computer Associates raises concerns for Renew, as this relationship may lead to further disclosures of Renew’s proprietary information in future sales. Strickler's claim that Renew did not demonstrate irreparable injury is unconvincing; irreparable injury occurs when damages cannot be adequately measured. Losses tied to the Computer Associates project are significant for Renew, as they include the loss of potential repeat business and customer goodwill, which are inherently difficult to quantify monetarily. Testimony indicated that Renew's inability to secure business from Computer Associates compounded these losses, which could lead to further undetected damages from Strickler's actions. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a permanent injunction based on the evidence presented. Regarding attorney's fees, Strickler contended that the district court erred in awarding these fees to Renew, arguing that the jury's lack of damages on contract claims and Renew’s failure to meet statutory requirements undermined the award. For attorney's fees to be recoverable, the claimant must prevail on a recoverable cause of action and secure damages. Without a monetary recovery, attorney's fees cannot be justifiably awarded as they do not add value to the claimant's relief. 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. Renew successfully proved the necessity of a permanent injunction to prevent Strickler from further violating his nondisclosure agreement and to protect its business interests. Although Renew did not receive monetary damages for Strickler’s breaches, the permanent injunction is valuable for safeguarding Renew's proprietary information against misuse by Strickler. Strickler contends that Renew waived its claim for attorney’s fees due to insufficient pleadings linking the fees to the injunctive relief. However, the statute under Texas law allows recovery of attorney’s fees for breach of contract, which includes Strickler's violations of the nondisclosure agreement. Strickler further argues that Renew did not adequately present its claim for attorney’s fees as required by section 38.002 of the civil practice and remedies code. Nonetheless, the law permits informal presentment, and Renew satisfied this requirement through a letter from its counsel requesting performance under the Agreement. Strickler was reminded of his obligations under the Agreement to refrain from competing with Renew and to protect its confidential information. His claim that Renew did not adequately present its case under section 38.002 of the civil practice and remedies code was dismissed as unfounded. Strickler contended that the district court improperly awarded nominal damages to Renew, arguing it constituted an illegal additur. However, Renew clarified that the court awarded $1 in nominal damages for a breach of contract claim, as permitted when actual damages are not proven. The court stated that nominal damages are recoverable only if specifically requested, and that Strickler's assertion that nominal damages cannot support attorney’s fees was incorrect; Renew is entitled to such fees based on its injunctive relief award. The court found Strickler's claims regarding the nominal damages award to be insignificant, thus not warranting a reversal. The conclusions drawn include that Renew did not act promptly in enforcing the covenant-not-to-compete, the enforceability of that covenant is moot, the district court's decisions were justified, and any error in the $1 damages award was negligible. The district court's judgment was affirmed.