Alliantgroup, L.P. v. Karim Solanji, Zeeshan Makhani, Saqib Dhanani, Paradigm National Consultants, L.P., Paradigm SMD Group, L.L.C., and Paradigm Partners, L.P.

Citation: Not availableDocket: 01-12-00798-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; March 18, 2014; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Alliantgroup contends that its former employees and their new company, the appellees, knowingly solicited its clients in violation of a settlement agreement, constituting tortious interference with contractual relationships. The majority upheld a no-evidence summary judgment dismissing these claims, asserting that Alliantgroup failed to demonstrate an active 'client' relationship with any solicited entity at the time of solicitation. The dissenting opinion challenges this interpretation, arguing that the majority erroneously construes the term 'client' as limited to those currently engaged in pending work, disregarding broader potential definitions within the context of the settlement agreement. The dissent emphasizes that the majority's reliance on a contractual termination provision to assert that all client relationships terminate upon fee payment is unfounded and implausible. It also criticizes the majority for characterizing the settlement agreement as an unenforceable covenant not to compete—an argument not raised by the appellees. The dissent points out that evidence submitted by Alliantgroup, including email correspondence, confirms that MGS and Acutec were indeed clients at the time of solicitation, and thus, Alliantgroup presented sufficient evidence to support its claims of breach.

Alliantgroup presented evidence indicating it maintained duties to MGS and Acutec, suggesting they were clients under the settlement agreement, which lacked a specific definition for 'clients.' This evidence raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding Alliantgroup's relationship with these companies. The appellees' summary judgment motion primarily challenged the existence of evidence showing their knowledge of Alliantgroup’s client status and did not focus on the definition of 'client.' They argued there was no evidence that defendants contacted MGS or Acutec or that they knew of their client status at the time of contact. However, Alliantgroup provided evidence that former employees, now with Paradigm, had prior relationships with MGS and Acutec, indicating shared knowledge. Evidence also showed that Paradigm contacted Acutec, which, regardless of the admissibility of MGS contact evidence, prevented summary judgment for the appellees.

Regarding the tortious interference claim, the appellees contended there was no evidence of a contractual relationship subject to interference, no willful interference by defendants, and no actual damages suffered by Alliantgroup. Nonetheless, Alliantgroup presented evidence of disparagement during Paradigm's solicitation of Acutec, which could be damaging under the settlement agreement. The appellees' argument against the enforceability of the liquidated damages provision did not negate the possibility of Alliantgroup suffering some damage. Consequently, the dissenting opinion concludes that the trial court's summary judgment should be reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings, asserting that Alliantgroup had presented sufficient evidence to raise material factual issues.