# United States Court of Appeals **for the Fifth Circuit**

____________ No. 23-30122

____________ Sabre Industries, Incorporated, Plaintiff—Appellant/Cross-Appellee ,

versus Module X Solutions, L.L.C., Defendant—Appellee/Cross-Appellant

.

______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:19-CV-934

______________________________

Before Smith, Elrod, and Graves, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam: * Sabre Industries, Incorporated (“Sa bre”), sued for various business torts and statutory violations. After discovery, the district court granted summary judgment to Module X Soluti ons, L.L.C. (“MXS”), but denied MXS’s motion for sanctions and attorney’s fees. Finding no error, we affirm.

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 15, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-30122 Document: 00517004031 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/15/2023No. 23-30122

2 I. Sabre provides a variety of products and services to energy and telecommunication companies. One division of Sabre focuses on energy storage, that is, providing storage facilities to energy compan ies. MXS was formed in 2014 when 100 employees left Sabre. Sabre supported that breakaway initially and engaged MXS to support Sabre’s projects. In 2019, however, MXS decided that it wanted to enter the ener gy-storage industry in its own name. To do that, it needed skilled employees. MXS engaged in a hiring push to recruit employees with energystorage experience. One of the employ ees hired was Joe McLaurin, a former Sabre employee. McLaurin proceeded to assist MXS in hiring other Sabre employees for MXS’s fledgling energy-sto rage division. Sabre argues that McLaurin’s conduct violated a non- compete agreement that McLaurin had signed with Sabre. MXS was aware of that non-compete agreement when it hired McLaurin. MXS’s hiring push paid off, as it wa s able to obtain skilled workers and bring in energy-storage clients. Sabr e, on the other hand, began to suffer financial losses and experienced an exodus of employees. Sa bre sued and, as relevant here, alleged that MXS tortious ly interfered with its business relationships, engaged in unfair trade pr actices, and misappropriated its tradesecrets and confidential information. Sabre voluntarily dismissed the misappropriation claims with prejudice when it was unable to substantiate them in discovery.
The claims of tortious interference and unfair trade practices reached the summary-judgment stage. The dist rict court determined that MXS’s conduct was motivated by profit, not ma lice, so it granted MXS’s motion for summary judgment. The district court also denied MXS’s motion for sanctions and attorney’s fees after determ ining that Sabre had not brought its Case: 23-30122 Document: 00517004031 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/15/2023No. 23-30122

3claims in bad faith. Sabre appealed the summary judgment, and MXS crossappealed the denial of sanction s and attorney’s fees.

II. Louisiana courts have long recogniz ed a cause of action for tortious interference with a business relationship. See Graham v. St. Charles St. R.R. Co. , 18 So. 707, 708 (La. 1895). But “Lou isiana courts have limited this cause of action by imposing a malice element, wh ich requires that the plaintiff show the defendant acted with actual malice.” JCD Mktg. Co. v. Bass Hotels & Resorts, Inc. , 2001-1096, p. 11 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/6/02), 812 So. 2d 834, 841. Sabre failed to discover any evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to find that MXS acted with actual malice when it hired McLaurin and used him to solicit and hire other Sabre employees . Therefore, the district court did not err in granting summary ju dgment to MXS on this claim.
The Louisiana Unfair Trade Practi ces and Consumer Protection Law (“LUTPA”) “grants a right of action to any person . . . who suffers an ascertainable loss as a result of another pe rson’s use of unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Cheramie Servs., Inc. v. Shell Deepwater Prod., Inc. , 2009-1633, p. 6 (La. 4/23/10), 35 So. 3d 1053, 1057; see La. Stat. Ann. § 51:1405(A). But the statute does not prevent compan ies from “pursu[ing] profit, even at the expense of competitors, so long as the means used are not egregious.” Cheramie Servs. , 2009-1633, p. 11, 35 So. 3d at 1060 (quoting Moore v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. , 364 So. 2d 630, 633 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1978)). Sabre failed to produce any evidence of action s taken by MXS that were “immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous , or substantially injurious.” Id. , 2009- 1633, p. 12, 35 So. 3d at 1059 (cleaned up). Therefore, the district court did not err in granting summary judgmen t to MXS on this claim. Finally, the district court did not err in denying MXS’s motion for Case: 23-30122 Document: 00517004031 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/15/2023No. 23-30122

4 sanctions and attorney’s fees because the evidence does not support MXS’s contentions that Sabre brought claims it knew to be false and prosecuted claims in bad faith. Even if there were evidence of sanctionable conduct, any error in evaluating Sabre’s conduct does not rise to the abuse-of-discretion level. See Whitehead v. Food Max, Inc. , 332 F.3d 796, 802–03 (5th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Finding no error, we AFFIRM the summary judgment and denial of sanctions and attorney’s f ees, essentially for the reasons the district court explained in its thorough Memorandum Ruling issued January 31, 2023. Case: 23-30122 Document: 00517004031 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/15/2023