Marlite, Inc. v. Modular Wood Systems, Inc.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FILED
No. 11-10592 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JAN 30, 2012
Dall. C. Docket No. 1:09-cv-22607-EGT JOHN LEY
CLERK
MARLITE, INC.,
Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-
Appellee,
versus
AMERICA CANAS, et al.,
Defendants-Counter Claimants,
MODULAR WOOD SYSTEMS INC.,
Defendant-Counter Claimant-
Appellant.
________________
No. 11-10593
________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cv-22607-EGT
MARLITE, INC.,
Plaintiff-Counter
Defendant-Appellee,
versus
AMERICA CANAS, et al.,
Defendants-Counter
Claimants,
ALVIN ECKENROD,
Defendant-Counter
Claimant-Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
(January 30, 2012)
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, MARCUS and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
These appeals arise from breaches of various agreements and restrictive
covenants by America Canas (“Canas”), Modular Wood Systems, Inc.
(“Modular”) and Alvin Eckenrod (“Eckenrod”), as the result of which Marlite, Inc.
lost business and profits. Marlite commenced an action in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, against Canas only. After a full
2
evidentiary hearing, the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio, issued a preliminary injunction against Canas. Subsequently, the case was
transferred from the Northern District of Ohio to the Southern District of Florida.
After the transfer, Marlite was granted leave to amend its complaint to add
Modular and Eckenrod as defendants because both were subject to jurisdiction in
Florida, and Marlite discovered evidence demonstrating a good faith basis for
bringing claims against them.
Modular filed a counter-claim seeking damages for alleged violations of a
confidentiality agreement between Eckenrod and Marlite.
Marlite and defendants Eckenrod and Modular filed cross-motions for
summary judgment. In its motion, Marlite sought judgment upon the claims
asserted in its second amended complaint, including its claim for breach of
contract against Eckenrod. Eckenrod opposed the motion. The district court
entered an order denying defendants Eckenrod and Modular’s motion for
summary judgment, denying Marlite’s motion as to claims asserted by and against
Modular, granting summary judgment in Marlite’s favor on its claim for breach of
contract against Eckenrod, and finding that Marlite was entitled to reasonable
attorney’s fees on its claim for breach of contract. The cases then proceeded to a
jury trial before a magistrate judge. At trial, the jury was called upon to determine
3
the issue of damages resulting from Eckenrod’s breach of his non-competition
agreement with Marlite and to determine issues of liability and damages related to
the claims asserted by and against Modular.
After a ten-day jury trial, the jury returned a verdict awarding damages in
the amount of $43,392.50 to Marlite and against Eckenrod on Marlite’s claim for
breach of contract, and awarded an additional sum of $355,584.50 to Marlite and
against Modular on Marlite’s claims for misappropriation of trade secrets and
tortious interference with contract, and finding in Marlite’s favor on Modular’s
counter-claim.
Thereafter, Eckenrod and Modular filed a motion for a judgment as a matter
of law and a motion for new trial. These motions were denied by the district court
and final judgment was entered in Marlite’s favor on the jury’s verdict. The
parties then perfected these appeals.
The issues presented on appeal are:
(1) Whether the district court failed to properly construe the provisions in
the Asset Purchase Agreement and Eckenrod’s Non-Competition Agreement
allowing the appropriate claims to go to the jury for its verdict and denying
Modular’s motion for judgment as a matter of law.
4
(2) Whether the district court properly denied Modular’s renewed motion
for judgment as a matter of law on Marlite’s misappropriation of trade secrets and
tortious interference with contract claims.
(3) Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment against
Eckenrod on Marlite’s breach of contract claim when Eckenrod hired Canas.
(4) Whether the district court properly denied Modular’s motion for
judgment as a matter of law on the jury’s awards of damages as to Eckenrod
individually and Modular and Eckenrod jointly and severally.
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same legal
standards that govern the district court’s decision. Levinson v. Reliance Standard
Life Ins. Co., 245 F.3d 1321, 1325 (11th cir. 2001).
“We review a district court’s denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of
law de novo, applying the same standards as the district court.” Montgomery v.
Noga, 168 F.3d 1282, 1289 (11th Cir. 1999).
After reviewing the record, reading the parties’ briefs, and having the
benefit of oral argument, we conclude that there is no merit to any of the
arguments presented by Modular or Eckenrod on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm
the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment to Marlite, the judgment
entered on the jury’s verdict and the district court’s order on all post-trial motions.
5
AFFIRMED.
6